An International Perspective on Contemporary Developments in Victimology: A Festschrift in Honor of Marc Groenhuijsen [1st ed.] 9783030416218, 9783030416225

Citation preview

Janice Joseph Stacie Jergenson  Editors

An International Perspective on Contemporary Developments in Victimology A Festschrift in Honor of Marc Groenhuijsen

An International Perspective on Contemporary Developments in Victimology

Janice Joseph  •  Stacie Jergenson Editors

An International Perspective on Contemporary Developments in Victimology A Festschrift in Honor of Marc Groenhuijsen

Editors Janice Joseph Department of Criminal Justice Stockton University Galloway, NJ, USA

Stacie Jergenson Department of Criminal Justice Bemidji State University Bemidji, MN, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-41621-8    ISBN 978-3-030-41622-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41622-5 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Prof. Dr. Mr. Marc Groenhuijsen President of the World Society of Victimology 2009–2018 Academic Career • 1980–1985: Assistant Professor, Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, University of Leiden • 1985–1987: Associate Professor, Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, University of Leiden • 1987–Present: Professor, Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure; Head, Department of Criminal Law; and since 2005 Professor, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, and Victimology, Tilburg University • 1992–1995: Dean, Law Faculty, Tilburg University • 1997–1998: Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tilburg University • 1986–2016: Part-Time Judge, District Court of Rotterdam • 1992–Present: Part-Time Judge, Court of Appeals of Arnhem • 2005–2015: Founder and First Director, INTERVICT (International Victimology Institute Tilburg) • 2006–Present: Member/Board Member, Dutch Royal Academy of Science (KNAW) • 2016–Present: Member, Supervisory Board, Maastricht University

Preface

Marc Groenhuijsen: Master in Law A Birds’-Eye View of An Impressive Career Marc’s career as a criminal law scholar, specialized in victims’ rights, kick-started with his PhD on “Compensation for Victims of Crimes in the Criminal Trial” defended at Leiden University in 1985. For this magnum opus of 400 pages, he duly received in 1986 the prestigious Modderman Prize for best criminal law PhD of the year. Unsurprisingly, he was soon thereafter, in 1987, at the tender age of 30, appointed Full Professor in Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure at Tilburg University. Thirty years later, he is still the incumbent of that same chair, besides having been Dean of both the Law and the Social Sciences Faculty of Tilburg University and Founding Director of the International Victimology Institute Tilburg (INTERVICT). His tenure in Tilburg, lasting more than three decades, makes him without doubt one of the longest-sitting chair holders of Dutch universities. With over 300 scientific publications, several Teacher of the Year Awards, a three-decade-long stint as Chief Editor of the leading criminal law journal of the Netherlands (Delikt en Delinkwent), and a successful supervision of over 40 PhDs, he has broken many academic records, nationally and internationally. Marc has served as a Member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, lately as Member of its Board, and received the highly prestigious Hendrik Muller Award for his achievements in the social sciences of the said Academy. Although he has been a full-fledged academician, his career has been far from academic in a narrow sense. In 1987, just after defending his PhD, he was asked to sit on a law reform committee advising the government on the role of the victim in criminal procedure. At his insistence, the committee advised the government to introduce compensation as penal measure. Within years, this innovative concept was duly incorporated into Dutch law by the legislature. For Dutch victims of crime, the chances to effectively receive compensation from the perpetrator are now better than almost anywhere vii

viii

Preface

else in the world. This is because the state enforces the measures and advances the money if the perpetrator doesn’t pay up. Many other similar high-impact advisory functions would befall Marc, including one on the reform of the Law on Criminal Procedure. From 1986 on, Marc also served as a part time judge in several appellate courts. During over 30 years, he has made important contributions to Dutch case law on a variety of issues. Last but not least, Marc has held a long list of important administrative positions outside of academia. In 1988, he became President of the Dutch Association of Victim Support, in which capacity he served many years. In conjunction, he was a long-serving Member of the fund-raising organization het Fonds Slachtofferhulp (Fund Victim Support). Internationally, he was elected as President of the European Forum on Victim Support in the 1990s and, finally, in 2009 of the World Society of Victimology. In all these administrative functions, he served with great honor, seeing his mandate extended to the fullest possible extent. He served these organizations not just as intellectual leader and ambassador but also as a wise and effective manager.

 evisiting “Compensation for Victims of Crimes R in the Criminal Trial” First and foremost, Marc was and is an eminent scholar. In order to gain a deeper understanding of his evolving scholarly work, what better method than to revisit his foundational PhD from 1985? In this voluminous book, Marc immediately showed his superior grip of written Dutch. His language is formal, as is to be expected from a legal scholar, but always crystal clear and with occasional flourishes of colloquial wit. His style of arguing is open-minded and explorative, perhaps sometimes somewhat long-winded. However, Marc is not one of those cautious “on the one hand/on the other hand” types of academic lawyer. To his great credit, he always rounds off his well-balanced arguments with refreshingly clear and definitive conclusions: “The proposal of Mr. B is not to be adopted.” Causa finita. Methodologically, Marc’s PhD stands in many respects in the tradition of legal doctrinal thinking which at Leiden University goes back centuries. The central question of the thesis, whether the victim ought to receive compensation from the offender, is approached as a purely normative one. His first Archimedean position – to borrow one of Marc’s own favorite terms – is that no rights of the victim should be allowed to weaken the rights of the defense as defined in modern criminal procedural law. For Groenhuijsen balancing, the rights of the two civil parties in the trial, the defendant and the victim, constitutes no zero-sum game. They can, and should always be, constructively reconciled. This fundamental normative position that victims’ rights may never operate at the expense of the rights of the defendant seems to have guided Marc’s approach toward victims’ rights ever since. For this reason, his support for victims’ rights has never been unconditional. His PhD laid the

Preface

ix

normative groundwork for his consistent position as a cautious, moderate rather than radical victimological reformer. In the Dutch debate on victim-friendly reforms, he has in recent years even projected himself as a “conservative” critic of those advocating recognition of the victim as a full party in the trial (Groenhuijsen & Letschert, 2012). Following the reasoning of famous Dutch law philosopher Gerard Langemeijer, the young Groenhuijsen subsequently argued in this thesis that if criminal justice according to modern conceptions must serve various public interests, it would be illogical and wrong to refuse serving the very real interests of the directly affected party as well. Serving these private interests, he argues, can indirectly contribute to the other legitimate public interests, for example, general prevention. In an important aside, Groenhuijsen analyzes more radical positions of critical criminologists Louk Hulsman and Nils Christie. For them, criminal justice fails to effectively serve its public functions of prevention and blatantly fails serving the interests of the victims as well. So why not abolish this nonfunctional institution altogether and/or replace it by restorative justice? Groenhuijsen analyzes this abolitionist argument meticulously but shows himself unpersuaded in the end. Quite rightly, he observes that many feminist critics of criminal justice demand better services from police and criminal justice and certainly not less, or none at all. This political argument has lost none of its salience over the years. Marc himself has remained consistently firm on this issue ever since. None of the victim support organizations he presided over have ever been receptive to abolitionist notions. Some of his finest later publications explain the limitations of restorative justice, especially if presented as an alternative to the criminal trial rather than as an optional supplement.

Comparative Victimology A subsequent, and relatively long, part of the thesis consists – as was usual at the time – of an excursion into comparative law. In this case, a detailed description and analysis of the position of the victim in the law of the neighboring countries, Belgium, France, and Germany, for which Marc consulted the famous Library of the Max Planck Institute in Freiburg, Germany. Comparative legal analysis, says Groenhuijsen, can open lawyers’ eyes for normative solutions they have so far been too myopic to grasp. Marc has continued to look over the border of the Netherlands throughout his career. One of his greatest assets as scholar has been his detailed knowledge of victims’ rights in a large sway of different countries besides the Netherlands. This international expertise has made him a much sought-after consultant on law reforms, e.g., in Russia, Hungary, and Serbia, and during deliberations at the United Nations on a possible new international treaty on the rights of crime victims. Ironically, the comparative part of his PhD research has not directly fed into his key recommendation that victim compensation must be introduced as a penal

x

Preface

measure to be enforced by the state. Both in the Napoleonic system of France and Belgium and in the German system, compensation is framed as a civil law matter, and verdicts must therefore be enforced with private means, often to no avail. Marc’s key and politically influential recommendation seems to have been informed more by best practices in common law countries like the UK (compensation orders) and the USA (restitution orders) than by those in the continental law countries he studied. In this instance, Marc seems to have been intellectually guided by his enduring admiration for all things American – planted during a gap year in “God’s own country” – especially its tradition of finding pragmatic legal solutions for pressing social problems. In his view, the adversarial system of common law does not, as many continental scholars assume, stand in the way of more victim-friendly procedures. The compensation and restitution orders are cases in point.

Multidisciplinary Sympathies Marc’s thesis, although squarely placed in the legal doctrinal tradition of Leiden Law School, takes full account of emerging findings of criminological and victimological empirical research. Numerous references are made in footnotes to studies of, inter alia, Herman Bianchi, Stanley Cohen, Robert Elias, Ezzat Fattah, Hans von Hentig, Klaus Sessar, and Jan Van Dijk. As a young scholar, Marc showed himself keenly interested in the contributions to the debate of other academic disciplines. Interestingly, though, he had at the time not yet found a way of integrating findings of empirical studies into the mainstream of his own normative style of reasoning. On this latter issue, Marc has himself recently commented in a review of the new stream of PhDs produced at Dutch law faculties (Groenhuijsen, 2018). He observes several differences between this new generation of PhDs and those from 30 years ago including his own. He first observes that the new theses are much more international in focus than those of the past. He criticizes himself for having completely missed the United Nations Declaration on Victims’ Rights of 1985 and the Council of Europe’s Recommendations on this topic of the same year. Considering that these legal instruments were adopted toward the end of 1985 and his PhD dates from 1985 too, this self-criticism seems rather unfair. But he is unquestionably right in observing that Dutch law PhDs have become less parochial, less focused on the issues before the Dutch High Court. Most of them deal with issues that transcend Dutch national law, not seldom arising in international law such as in the Statute of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. I would like to add that most of the new theses are written in basic academic English, and not, most certainly not, in the superb High Dutch of Marc’s own thesis. Most strikingly for a modern reader, even the summary of his thesis was not in English but in German. In this respect, Marc, whose later publications are typically written in impeccable English, has come a long way. The most pertinent difference by far between the old and new theses according to Marc is that recent PhDs defended at Dutch Law faculties have become much

Preface

xi

more truly interdisciplinary. Many of the new theses address issues concerning the impact of the law in action rather than the substance of law in the books. Most apply quantitative or qualitative methods of empirical research developed in sociology or social psychology to test assumptions or hypotheses relevant to their subject matter. Purely normative studies have become a rare occurrence in criminal law theses. Judged by Marc’s own standards, his thesis of 1985 is very much “old school.” But what he fails to mention in his review is that several of the new PhDs have been produced at his own International Victimology Institute Tilburg and/or have been supervised by him. The roots of these new theses can be found in the keen interest in multidisciplinary approaches exhibited in Marc’s old-fashioned but groundbreaking PhD.  Jan Van Dijk  Leiden University  Leiden Netherlands  University of Tilburg  Tilburg Netherlands

References Groenhuijsen, M. (2018). Methoden van onderzoek in het strafrecht, de criminologie en de victimologie. Bosma, A. & Buisman, S. (eds.). Promotieonderzoek anno 2018: Over vooruitgang in de rechtswetenschap en nieuwe uitdagingen, Deventer: Kluwer, p. 7-13. Groenhuijsen, M.S., & Letschert. R. (2012). ‘Over spreekrecht plus en een twee fasen proces. Dilemma’s bij een verantwoorde hervorming van het strafproces’, in: M.S.  Groenhuijsen, R. Letschert & S. Hazenbroek (red.), KLM Van Dijk. Liber Amicorum prof. mr. dr. J.J.M. Van Dijk, Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, p. 137-151 (in English: About victim statements and the two-staged trial. Reflections on a responsible reform of the criminal trial).

Introduction

The discipline of victimology has been an evolving discipline and has experienced tremendous growth since it first emerged in the 1940s in Europe. Today, due to the global scope of victimological teaching, research, and practice, victimology has become an international discipline. In this book, a number of international scholars examine the current developments and debates within the field of victimology from a multidisciplinary perspective, including social work, criminology, sociology, psychology, and law. These perspectives offer a range of victimological approaches and practices in victimology. The introductory chapters cover new perspectives in victimology which are followed by different forms of victimization in various countries across the globe. Special attention is also given to victims’ rights and participation in the criminal justice system which have been recognized as important developments in victimology. This book also details victim-centered approaches to justice by exploring the restorative justice and restitution as practiced in various countries. The central purpose of the book is to provide an international and holistic overview of recent developments in victimology. This book also reflects the range of approaches and a depth of scholarship and issues that are current in victimology. The scope of the content is international in perspective, but the content is grounded in everyday experiences of victims. The chapters in Part I of the text offer insights into new perspectives and approaches in victimology which offer the discipline its uniqueness. In Chapter 1, K. Jaishankar argues that cyber victimization can be studied from multiple perspectives. Thus, he advocates for a sub-discipline of victimology, that is, cyber victimology, which examines cybercrimes purely from victims/victimization perspective. In Chapter 2, Sarah Ben David explores the traditional stages of survival that an individual who experiences the trauma of victimization often goes through, namely, victim, survivor, and thriver stages of survival. However, Sarah Ben David insightfully introduces a fourth stage which is referred to as the overcomer stage. In Chapter 3, Gema Varona examines the trend for an algorithmic victimology in the context of today’s criminal justice, mainly in Western societies. She identifies the major challenges that algorithmic victimology entails for theory and research and xiii

xiv

Introduction

makes suggestions about “the possibilities for establishing victimology as a legitimate branch of knowledge that is interdisciplinary, intersectoral, and international.” In Chapter 4, Robert Peacock focuses on a critical exploration of the restorative Ubuntu values. He discusses the concept of Ubuntu, including its transformative value and importance of “interpretation and meaning of culture in relation to the subfield of victimology.” Janne Fengler, in Chapter 5, emphasizes the fact that professionals working with victim support often face conflicting intervention strategies. She discusses the “ALOHA-Intervention-Model,” which could be utilized by professionals in their work with victims who seek services. To conclude this part of the book, Jan Van Dijk, in Chapter 6, analyzes the elements of the victim labeling theory that seem to have withstood critical scrutiny. He also concludes that victim labeling theory’s relevance for victimology lies in its potential to explain current responses to crime victims. The chapters in Part II focus on different types of victimization, the effects and consequences of victimization on the victims, and responses to such victimization. In Chapter 7, Mally Shechory Bitton and Donya Hawa-Kamel report their findings from their study on “the risk of the victimization of Arab girls.” Their results show that girls who were at risk reported more self-harm than girls in a control group, the level of aggression among them was significantly higher than among the control group, and their self-control and traditionalism were lower. In Chapter 8, Janice Joseph focuses on female victims of transgender femicide in the USA.  She discusses how gendered violence against transgender women is intrinsically related to class, race, and gender identity and stresses that these multifaceted and multilayered identities intersecting simultaneously contribute to the nature and extent of homicide of transgender women. Sarah Simons, in Chapter 9, discusses results from her interviews with 44 seafarers at a seafarers’ leisure center located in a busy port in the UK. Her results show that the seafarers’ profession is an occupational hazard in East Africa and that they experience several forms of victimization during attacks and capture. In Chapter 10, using a victim-centered approach, Paula Songs and Janice Joseph examine the experiences of victims of domestic minor child trafficking in the USA. They also critically evaluated the services that are available for such victims of human trafficking. In Chapter 11, Reyna Faride Peña Castillo and Dora Adolfina Ayora Talavera highlight the Mouth to Mouth: My Body, No One Can Touch It Program which was designed by the University Unit of Clinical Research and Victimological Attention (UNIVICT) of the Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán (UADY) in Southern México. It is a sexual prevention program that targets children between the ages of 5 to 10 years old. They outline how the program is administered and report the results of the evaluation of the program that was undertaken 2 years after it was created. Taken together, these chapters provide an insight into a variety of forms of victimization. Part III of the book presents the legal rights of victims and victim’s participation in the criminal justice system. In Chapter 12, Irwin Waller asks the question: What can we achieve by 2030? Rights for victims of crime in the era of Sustainable Development Goals. He points out that one of the Sustainable Development Goals is the reduction in victims of violence against women and victims of violence and

Introduction

xv

homicide and equal access to justice. He suggests that since the UNGA resolution for the victim magna carta in 1985, much progress has been made. In Chapter 13, Marianne Johanna Lehmkuhl traces the development of international law on victims’ rights starting with the UN Declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crime and abuse of power of 1985 to the Directive 2012/29/EU which establishes minimum standards on the rights, support, and protection of victims of crime. John Dussich argues, in Chapter 14, that the major challenge of victim’s rights is to ensure that victim participation in the criminal justice system is occurring. He also identifies three other contemporary major challenges which include (a) preserving the hard-earned rights advanced for victims despite the recent lowered crime rates, (b) preparing for the elder abuse tsunami that has already arrived because of the postwar baby boomers beginning their elder years, and (c) preventing victimization in the first instance among vulnerable groups to ensure safety from all forms of violence for all persons. In Chapter 15, Michael O’Connell states that many victims have the desire to participate in the decision-making process in the court. Based on his experiences as a Commissioner for Victims’ Rights in South Australia and on lawyers’ and judges’ comments, he describes several ways victims can have a stronger voice in the criminal justice process. The contribution by Yoshiko Takahashi, in Chapter 16, addresses the fact that many Asian victims internalize and reinforce the image of “model victims” and silently suffer rather than seek assistance. This is particularly true to many Southeast Asian refugees, who have experienced ongoing struggles and long-term trauma caused by political turmoil in their home countries and maladaptation to new environments. She recommends that more research on and advocacy services for Asian American victims be conducted to better support this population of victims. Part IV identifies the practical dimensions of victimology and focuses on programs from different countries in the world. Otmar Hagemann and Geoff Emerson, in Chapter 17, analyze victim-initiated restorative justice by comparing referrals from different sources. These include referrals from victims and offenders and more importantly self-referral. Their analysis is based on their practical experiences from restorative justice pilot projects in Germany and Britain. In Chapter 18, Alline Pedra Jorge Birol presents an analysis of restorative justice and its application in Brazil. In this chapter, she discusses the judiciary and restorative justice, restorative justice programs and practices in different regions of Brazil, the therapeutic aspects of restorative justice in Brazil, and the role of crime victims within restorative justice programs in Brazil. In Chapter 19, Vesna Nikolić-Ristanović and Sanja Ćopić discuss how restorative justice is utilized in the prison settings in a woman’s prison in Belgrade, Serbia. These two authors skillfully identify the strengths of the program and recommend that restorative justice approaches should be used with both incarcerated adults and juveniles. In Chapter 20, Jo-Anne Wemmers addresses the question: restitution helping victims or punishing offenders? She provides insight into the fact that restitution in Canada seems to focus on punishing offenders rather than helping victims. Thus, Canada has failed to respect the spirit of the UN Declaration, which recommends that restitution be a form of assistance to crime victims. In Chapter 21, Chadley James and Aaron Eyjolfson argue that victim assistance

xvi

Introduction

organizations often struggle to offer sustainable programs and assistance to victims. They suggest that it is imperative that such programs focus on addressing vital issues such as strategic planning, utilization of evidence-based research, and the need for improved funding. In Chapter 22, Moshe Bensimon, Dick Andzenge, D. Lee Gilbertson, Stacie Jergenson, and Natti Ronel argue that although the field of victimology has made remarkable progress since its creation, there are gaps between the purely academic study and theorization in victimology and the various field activities that are related to victims. They, therefore, advocate for a professional practice of victimology. In summary, the information presented by the authors provide a comparative and international lens through which to view victims, victimization, and victim services. The chapters in this book also provide a comprehensive examination of the growth and development of victimology from a specialization in criminology to an academic discipline with its own theoretical paradigms, research, and practice.

Contents

Part I New Perspectives and Approaches in Victimology 1 Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology����������������������������������������������    3 K. Jaishankar 2 From Victim to Survivor to Overcomer ������������������������������������������������   21 Sarah Ben-David 3 The Relevance of Error Margins in the Trend Towards Algorithmic Victimology: Some Remarks on the Futures of Theory and Risk Assessment From the Spanish Periphery������������   31 Gema Varona 4 A Victimological Exploration of the African Values of Ubuntu ����������   45 Robert Peacock 5 New Perspectives on a General Methodology of Victim Support��������   57 Janne Fengler 6 Victim Labeling Theory; A Reappraisal������������������������������������������������   73 Jan Van Dijk Part II Types of Victimization 7 Arab Girls at Risk of Victimization: Cultural and Personal Characteristics������������������������������������������������������������������   93 Mally Shechory Bitton and Donya Hawa-Kamel 8 Transphobic Femicide: An Intersectional Perspective ������������������������  105 Janice Joseph 9 Maritime Piracy Victimization of Seafarers and Their Families ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  121 Sarah Simons xvii

xviii

Contents

10 Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking in the United States: A Victim-Centered Approach������������������������������������������������������������������  137 Paula Songs and Janice Joseph 11 Findings From an Intervention on the Prevention of Sexual Abuse of Children From Mayan Communities in Mexico��������������������������������������������������������������������������  151 Reyna Faride Peña Castillo and Dora Adolfina Ayora Talavera Part III Victims’ Rights and Participation in the Criminal Justice System 12 What Can We Achieve by 2030? Rights for Victims of Crime in the Era of Sustainable Development Goals ����������������������  167 Irvin Waller 13 The Value of Legal Provisions for an Adequate Treatment of Victims of Crime: Does the Victims’ Rights Directive of the European Union Set a New Benchmark?������������������������������������  181 Marianne Johanna Lehmkuhl 14 Ensuring Victims’ Participation in the Criminal Justice System of the United States of America������������������������������������  197 John P. J. Dussich 15 Improving Access to Justice: Procedural Justice Through Legal Counsel for Victims of Crime ��������������������������������������  207 Michael O’Connell 16 Victims Behind the Model Minority Myth: Are Asian Americans Model Victims?����������������������������������������������������  225 Yoshiko Takahashi Part IV Practical Dimensions of Victimology 17 Victim-Initiated Restorative Justice ������������������������������������������������������  239 Otmar Hagemann and Geoff Emerson 18 Restorative Justice Implemented by the Judiciary in Brazil: Results and the Role of the Victim����������������������������������������  255 Alline Pedra Jorge Birol 19 Introducing Restorative Approaches in Prison Settings: An Example of a Victim Awareness Program in Serbia ����������������������  269 Sanja Ćopić and Vesna Nikolić-Ristanović 20 Restitution: Helping Victims or Offenders?������������������������������������������  283 Jo-Anne Wemmers

Contents

xix

21 Evaluating the Challenges to Victim Services in North America��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  295 Chadley James and Aaron Eyjolfson 22 Applied Victimology: The Professional Practice of Victimology������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  309 Moshe Bensimon, Dick D. T. Andzenge, D. Lee Gilbertson, Stacie Jergenson, and Natti Ronel Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  319

About the Authors

Dick  D.  T.  Andzenge  is a Professor of Criminal Justice and Victimology and Director of Justice Research Center at St. Cloud State University and Co-director of Postgraduate Courses in Victimology, Victim Assistance, and Criminal Justice in Dubrovnik and South Africa. He is also a former Member of the Executive Committee and Chair of the Scientific Committee of the World Society of Victimology (2003–2006) and is a sought-after speaker and contributor to Victimology globally in Asia, the USA, the Middle East, and Africa. After graduating from nursing school in Nigeria, he studied Sociology at Calvin College and later both Sociology and International Development Administration at Western Michigan University where he earned his PhD in Sociology with specializations in Criminology, Political Sociology, and Medical Sociology. His writing and research on victimology focuses on substantive scientific victimology, domestic violence, victims of terrorism, abuse of power, reducing victimization by crime prevention and peacemaking, and restorative justice. Dora  Adolfina  Ayora  Talavera  is a psychologist. She has a Master’s degree in Family Therapy and a doctor’s degree conferred by Tilburg University. She is Principal Professor in the Faculty of Psychology at Autonomous University of Yucatan. She has a long private practice as a psychotherapist and teaches and supervises in different private universities in Mexico. She has worked with collaborative and social constructionist ideas and reflexive processes for more than 15 years. She is a Member of Mexican Positive Psychology Association and Mexican Family Therapy Association. She has been Postgraduate Program Coordinator and Coordinator of External Service of Psychology Support (SEAP) in the same public university; President of Colegio de Psicólogos del Estado de Yucatán; President and Founder Member of Family and Couples Therapist Southeast Association, Merida, Mexico; and Member of the Interdisciplinary Committee for the evaluation of study plans, Government of Yucatán, Mexico. Lately, she is developing a “Human Relationships Agency” that combines collaborative and social constructionist ideas with literature, art, teaching, and research.

xxi

xxii

About the Authors

Sarah Ben-David  is a Senior Clinical Criminologist and Victimologist. Her publications and research topics include, among others, subjects and theories in victimology and treatment both of sexual offenders and victims. Moshe  Bensimon  is a Senior Lecturer and the Head of the Rehabilitative MA Program in the Department of Criminology at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. His fields of research include victimology – posttraumatic stress disorder among victims and music therapy with posttraumatized victims  – music in prison, and aggression, crime, and music. Sanja Ćopić  is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research in Belgrade and a Researcher and the President of the Executive Board of the Victimology Society of Serbia. She currently serves as the Editor in Chief of Temida  – Serbian leading academic journal on victimization, human rights, and gender. She has participated in numerous research and action-­ oriented projects on victims of crime, domestic violence, human trafficking, gender-based discrimination, reconciliation, victim support, and restorative justice and has published extensively on these topics. The main focus of her recent work has been the use of restorative justice in criminal matters and victim’s position in RJ programs and applying restorative approaches in intercultural settings. John  P.  J.  Dussich  received his BS in Clinical Psychology, MS in Corrections/ Criminology, and PhD in Criminology/Sociology from Florida State University. He is the Creator/Founder of the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA), which he launched in Fresno in 1976 serving as Executive Director for 4 years. He served in the World Society of Victimology (WSV) as Founding Secretary General for three 3-year terms and as Past President (2006–2009). He served in the US Army for 29 years in the Military Police Corps retiring as Full Colonel. He taught 20 years in Japan (1993–2013) and was Creator/Director of the Tokiwa International Victimology Institute (TIVI) and Editor in Chief of its journal: International Perspectives in Victimology. He created the Mito Victim Support Center in Japan (now Ibaraki Victim Support Center) in November 1994. He is Criminology Professor Emeritus from California State University, Fresno, and is international volunteer disaster responder. He has published 16 books and 106 articles and made 204 presentations (mostly on victim support and victimology). His most recent international work was as Chair of the WSV’s United Nations Liaison Committee for victims’ rights. On April 12, 2016, he received the Ronald Reagan Public Policy Award from the US Attorney General. Geoff Emerson  graduated from the University of Durham in 1972 with a Degree in Geography. He gained his Diploma in Social Work from Leicester University in 1974 and started working as a Probation Officer in the same year. In 1997, he gained a Diploma in Probation Service Management. He worked for the Probation Service in numerous roles from practitioner to Senior Manager until his retirement in 2013. He spent the last 10 years of his career as a Senior Probation Officer responsible for

About the Authors

xxiii

research into and the development of restorative justice in probation and prison settings. Since 2011, he has worked as an Associate with the Thames Valley Partnership seeking to extend the development of RJ through EU-funded collaborations, the creation of victim-initiated services, the training of prison staff and prisoners in restorative approaches, work in schools, and the training of staff who work with children in care and educational settings. He has coauthored a number of reports, papers, and articles assessing the impact of restorative interventions on victims and offenders with colleagues involved in EU collaborations and local academics in the Thames Valley. Aaron  Eyjolfson  received his MA in Criminal Justice from the University of the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada. He worked as a federal parole officer with the Correctional Service of Canada for 18 years before joining Lethbridge College as an Instructor in the School of Justice Studies in 2014. He is the recipient of a 2019 Teaching Excellence Award. His research interests relate to the application of virtual reality technology to assist victims of crime and other marginalized and vulnerable populations. He is currently working on creating an interactive virtual reality tour of Lethbridge’s supervised consumption site and collaborating with a musician and playwright to create an immersive experience about the impacts of opioid addiction. He has been a Guest Lecturer at the 2-week Postgraduate Course in Victimology, Victim Assistance, and Criminal Justice held every year at the Inter-University Center (IUC) Dubrovnik, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Janne Fengler  is Vice Dean in the Faculty of Human Sciences and Social Sciences, Department of Education, Alanus University of Arts and Social Sciences, Bonn, Germany. She holds a professorship in Educational Psychology and Childhood Education. Her fields of research and teaching include methods of social work, victimology, and professionalization. She is Editor of numerous books and special editions of scientific journals. Furthermore, she edits a periodical as well as a scholarly/ peer-reviewed journal as Editor and Editor in Chief in the topic areas of action-­ oriented education, professional development, and human resource management. In her latest monograph, she developed a model of effective assessment and decision-­ making in social work in general and in victimology in particular (ALOHA model). She is Member of different scientific advisory boards and evaluation panel groups and gives lectures at international scientific conferences dedicated to the subject areas of educational sciences, psychology, social work, as well as victimology and criminology on a regular basis. Science-Video-Clip zum Buch (“Pädagogisches Handeln in der Sozialen Arbeit” in a nutshell): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_bdOqsNjVo&list= PL2OaYwZouwKf3UF-JbfAC_kfZkSEoxW5t ∗∗∗∗∗Fengler, J. (2017). Pädagogisches Handeln in der Sozialen Arbeit. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. ∗∗∗∗∗

xxiv

About the Authors

D. Lee Gilbertson  PhD in Sociology, is a forensic victimologist and gang specialist. He has taught at the university level as a Professor of Criminal Justice since August 2000. His background includes 16 years of exemplary military service in the US Army (Infantry and Signals Intelligence) as a noncommissioned and commissioned officer. He also consults with law enforcement and provides training in the areas of forensic victimology, crime analysis, and gangs. He has studied gangs, militias, and extremist groups since 1995. He has lectured at numerous conferences and academic institutions in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Israel and has studied several European languages. He is a Staff Member of the National Gang Crime Research Center and has participated in all 22 iterations of its International Gang Specialist Training Conference. He is a three-time recipient of the Frederic Milton Thrasher Award (2002, 2005, and 2008) and is the Executive Editor for the Journal of Gang Research. He has appeared on television several times regarding his research and consulting on questionable deaths. He is currently working with Innocence Project attorneys on a Texas death penalty case. Otmar  Hagemann  Professor in the Faculty of Social Work and Health, Kiel University of Applied Sciences, Germany, is a sociologist, victimologist, and criminologist. His main research interest is in peacemaking between victims and offenders in a broad sense aiming for a restorative society. He has written several articles on various aspects of restorative justice including its application on post-­sentencing level, the crucial role of empathy, and coping processes which hamper or promote restorative dialogues. He set up the first German conferencing project in criminal matters and is a Member of a steering group on restorative justice at the SchleswigHolstein Ministry of Justice. Among others, he is a Member of the European Forum for Restorative Justice and has carried out international action research with European partners from various countries (see https://www.rjustice.eu/). He is the Coeditor of the book Victimology, Victim Assistance and Criminal Justice: Perspectives Shared by International Experts at the Inter-University Centre of Dubrovnik (2009, Fachhochschule Niederrhein in Mönchengladbach). Donya Hawa-Kamel  completed her PhD at Bar-Ilan University in 2019. Currently, she lectures at the study centers for the Open University of Acre and Sakhnin. Also, she is Lecturer at Western Galilee Academic College and teacher instructor in the Ministry of Education. K.  Jaishankar  is presently the Professor of Criminology and Head of the Department of Criminology at the Raksha Shakti University (Police and Internal Security University), Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. He is the recipient of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, India (NASI), SCOPUS Young Scientist Award 2012 – Social Sciences and ISC – and S. S. Srivastava Award for Excellence in Teaching and Research in Criminology. He was a Commonwealth Fellow (2009–2010) at the Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, School of Law, University of Leeds, UK. He is the Founding Editor in Chief of the International Journal of Cyber Criminology (www.cybercrimejournal.com) and Editor in Chief of International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences (www.ijcjs.com). He is the

About the Authors

xxv

Founding President of the South Asian Society of Criminology and Victimology (SASCV) (www.sascv.org) and Founding Executive Director (Honorary) of the Centre for Cyber Victim Counselling (CCVC) (www.cybervictims.org). He was appointed as an International Ambassador of the British Society of Criminology (BSC). Also, he is Founding Father of the academic discipline Cyber Criminology (2007) and is the proponent of the Space Transition Theory of Cyber Crimes (2008). His areas of academic competence are cyber criminology, victimology, crime mapping, GIS, communal violence, policing, and crime prevention. Email: profjai16@ gmail.com URL: http://www.jaishankar.org Chadley James  received his MS in Clinical Criminology from the University of Leicester, UK, and his PhD in Victimology from Tokiwa University, Japan. His research focuses on the intersection of culture and victimization, developing and evaluating victim assistance programs for marginalized populations, along with developing better training programs for victim assistance personnel working with victims of violent crime. He is the recipient of the 2015 World Society of Victimology (WSV) Benjamin Mendelsohn Young Victimologist Award and is the organizing Co-director of the 2-week Postgraduate Course in Victimology, Victim Assistance, and Criminal Justice held every year at the Inter-University Center (IUC), Dubrovnik, Croatia. He is an Executive Committee Member of the WSV (Treasurer) and a part of the UN Liaison Committee of the WSV. He is the Coauthor of the textbook Victimology and Victim Assistance: Advocacy, Intervention, and Restoration. In addition to this publication, he has published in international journals and textbooks and has presented papers at international conferences, courses, and seminars in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East, and the USA. Stacie Jergenson  is an Assistant Professor at Bemidji State University, Minnesota, USA, with primary teaching responsibilities in Victimological Theory and Practice, Forensic Victimology, Global Perspectives in Victimology, Restorative Justice, Criminology and Delinquency, and Directed Group Study (capstone projects). Within a Criminal Justice BS Program, she has created and delivered a new multidisciplinary victimology emphasis. Her research topics include victim services, restorative justice practices, applied victimology, sex trafficking, prostitution, murdered and missing indigenous women, epidemiological criminology, homicides, and GIS analyses. She serves on an anti-sex trafficking task force, striving to build connections with three local American Indian reservations. Her previous employment includes 15 years within a state judicial branch. She regularly travels and lectures internationally. Janice  Joseph  is a Distinguished Professor of the Criminal Justice Program at Stockton University and presently the Coordinator of the Victimology and Victim Services Minor Program. In 2010, she became the 47th President of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS), a national criminal justice organization with over 2,000 members. She has also served as ACJS United Nations NGO representative for over 10 years. She was elected four times as a Member of the Executive Board

xxvi

About the Authors

of the International Scientific and Professional Advisory Council (ISPAC) of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, Milan, Italy, and was the Chair of the Working Party on Violence Against Women for that UN Institute. She is presently one of the Vice Presidents of the World Society of Victimology (WSV) and the Chair of the Standards and Norms for that organization. She was also Chair of the UN Liaison Committee of WSV. She is the Editor of the Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, a scholarly criminal justice journal. Her broad research interests include gangs, juvenile delinquency, female victims, and women and criminal justice. She has over 70 publications and made over 150 professional presentations in more than 28 different countries. Marianne  Johanna  Lehmkuhl  is Full Professor for Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, and Criminology and Managing Director of the Department of Criminal Law and Criminology at the University of Bern, Switzerland. Originally from Austria, she had worked at the University of Graz, Austria, and moved in 2009 to Switzerland where she was Professor for Criminal Law at the University of St. Gallen (2009–2013). Since 2013, she is working in Berne. Her research focusses on corporate criminal liability, economic crime, environmental crime, restorative justice, and victims’ rights from a national, international, and comparative perspective. She is President of the SNF Research Commission of the University of Bern and Member of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, of the Humboldt Foundation, and of the Federal Commission of Casinos. Vesna  Nikolić-Ristanović  is a Full Professor of Criminology, Victimology, Juvenile Delinquency, and Child Abuse in the Faculty of Special Education and Rehabilitation, University of Belgrade, Serbia. She is a Founder and the Director of the Victimology Society of Serbia. She is also a Member of the European Academy of Science and Arts, Former President of the European Society of Criminology, and Honorary Member of the World Society of Victimology. She is a Founder and served for years as an Editor in Chief of Temida, a Serbian leading academic journal on victimization, human rights, and gender. She is also yoga instructor certified by the International Yoga Academy – yoga alliance of Serbia. Her main fields of experience and research include victims of crime, violence against women, victim support, women’s crime, war and crime, reconciliation and intergroup communication, yoga, mindfulness and victims, and restorative justice. Michael O’Connell  AM, APM, BSocSc, MPubPol&Admin, FGLF, before retiring, was the first Commissioner for Victims’ Rights, South Australia. Prior, he was the state’s first Victims of Crime Coordinator and, while serving as a police officer, was the Inaugural Victim Impact Statement Coordinator. He lectures, writes, and edits in the field of victimology. Internationally, he is a Life Member and current Secretary-General for the World Society of Victimology, a Vice President of the NGO Alliance on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, a Member of the International Network Supporting Victims of Terrorism, and a Foundation and Board Member of Victim Support Asia. As an expert, he participates on UN projects on victims’ rights (including the rights of victims of terrorism and victims of sexual

About the Authors

xxvii

exploitation), restorative justice, and other justice matters. Domestically, he is the Victim Advocate for prisoners’ children (Second Chances SA), a White Ribbon Ambassador, and Patron of the Love, Hope and Gratitude Foundation. In 1995, he was awarded the Australia Police Medal, and then in 2017, in recognition of his tireless campaign for victims’ rights and contributions to criminal justice policy, he was made a Member of the Order of Australia. Robert Peacock  is the President of the World Society of Victimology (WSV) and Chair of the Department of the Criminology at the University of the Free State, South Africa. Since the apartheid years in South Africa, he has been working actively in the field of victimology with child justice and institutional victimization as particular focus areas. In pursuit of the advancement of an African victimology that is both regionally and globally relevant, areas of expertise refer to the victimization of children deprived of their liberty, the victimology of international crimes, and transitional justice. He has been playing an active role within the scientific community with the presentation of research findings at various regional and international symposia, service to scientific committees, and editorial boards or as a Visiting Professor to higher education institutions across the globe. He is a Founding Member and Course Co-director of the African Postgraduate Course of Victimology, Victim Assistance, and Criminal Justice of the WSV. He has been the recipient of a number of awards and is the Author of several scientific publications (in English, Spanish, and Afrikaans). Most recently, he is the Editor of the book Victimology in South Africa (2019). Alline Pedra Jorge Birol  is a Brazilian Lawyer who received her two Master’s in Law and Criminology and her PhD in Criminology from the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. She has expertise with policy-oriented research, assessments, training, and project management in the fields of crime prevention, human security, migration and human trafficking, victims’ rights and protection, and restorative justice. She works for international organizations (OHCHR, UNODC, ICMPD, UNICEF, IPPDH, UNDP, and IOM) in South America, Europe, and Turkey as expert. Reyna Faride Peña Castillo  is Professor in the Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, México; Director of the Thematic Network for Research and Applications in Victimology (INTERAVI) to which universities in Latin America, Spain, and North America with a line of research on social violence associated with transnational crime; and Creator of the model of care for victims of the University Unit of Clinic and Victimological Research (UNIVICT) implemented in the Autonomous University of Yucatán. She also was involved in the design and operation of the first crime prevention programs with regionalized and inclusive characteristics of the Mayan culture in the south-southeast of Mexico. Funded by the W.K.  Kellogg Foundation, she participated in the design of psychoeducational and therapeutic materials as a line of work to promote prevention of abuse and violence in children. Since 2005, in collaboration with the university and government, she and her colleagues have been offering different specialized services for victims incorporating the methods of preparation and support to victims and witnesses as part of

xxviii

About the Authors

institutional protocols. From UNIVICT, a training program in the long term was designed to incorporate college undergraduate and graduate students, which is based on competencies for crisis intervention and therapeutic processes, monitoring schemes, and mental health care. Natti  Ronel  is a clinical criminologist and a Professor of Criminology in the Department of Criminology, Bar-Ilan University, previously the Head of the Department, and currently the Head of the Advanced Studies Committee. His research is mainly focused on rehabilitation and recovery of individuals related to issues of criminality, victimization, and different addictions. His original developments are positive (not positivistic!) criminology, positive victimology, spiritual criminology, and spiritually based recovery related to criminality, victimization, and addictions. Currently, he works on the development of spiritual victimology, that is, a spiritual worldview understanding and responding to victimization and victim assistance. Mally  Shechory  Bitton  is the Vice Rector and the Head of the Criminology Department at Ariel University, Israel. She graduated her PhD at Bar-Ilan University in 2002. After earning her doctorate, she commenced to study family therapy. In addition, from 2005 to 2007, she conducted a postdoctoral study on the subject of victim offender mediation, supervised by Prof. Hans-Jurgen Kerner, Head of the Institute of Criminology, University of Tübingen, Germany. Her academic work includes both practical and theoretical experiences in several fields: victimology (of crimes and terror), sex offences and their victims, ideological offenders, psychological investigation, and eye witness. She has a very broad scientific activity, documented in numerous publications. Sarah Simons  is Executive Committee Member of the World Society of Victimology and Chairperson of the All-Africa Criminal Justice Society. Over 25 years of professional victim support interventions in criminal justice systems in 17 countries on 4 continents nurtured her humanistic victimology perspective. She focuses on strengthening victim strategic and operational intervention capabilities, often in volatile, resource-constrained, and “high-risk” contexts. Her roles include training criminal justice professionals, project conceptualization and management, fundraising for victim advocacy work, and community engagement to empower victims, survivors, and their service providers including administering a Witness Service at a UK Court. Her research interests include African endogenous victimology; human rights advocacy for migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and people living with disabilities and mental ill health; empowerment of women and girls; women, peace, and security in Africa; young African women empowerment; forensic criminology; forensic psychology; and forensic psychiatry (PTSD). Her publications include “Analysis of Maritime Piracy in Eastern Africa Between 2000 and 2010 and Its Impact on Seafarers Occupational Risk Perception” (http://orca.cf.ac.uk/112454/); “The Media: Minimizing Re-victimisation Through Duty of Care for Victims and Responsible Journalism” (https://doi.org/10.2298/TEM1703377S); “Using Vignettes to Elicit

About the Authors

xxix

Sensitive Testimony: Researching Piracy in East Africa” (SAGE Research Methods, https://doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014533918); and “Situation Analysis of Human Trafficking in Eastern Africa” in Global Report on Trafficking in Persons (https://www.unodc.org/documents/Global_Report_on_TIP.pdf). Paula Songs  is a PhD candidate and a part-time Faculty Member in the Department of Justice Studies at Prairie View A&M University. Her doctoral research investigates the level of awareness, identification practices, and services available for minor sex trafficking within the USA.  She takes an exploratory approach that encompasses justice officials, law enforcement, and service providers for sex trafficking minors. Additionally, she is concerned about the overlooked population of minor male sex trafficking victims. She completed her Master’s degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Houston-Downtown, Houston, Texas. For her MS thesis, she focused on juvenile waivers, children being transferred from the juvenile court to the criminal court. The thesis also focused on children being indicted as adults and subjected to adult punishments in adult prisons. She obtained her BA from Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas, in Political Science. Prior to starting her doctorate, she was a substitute teacher for Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District. Yoshiko Takahashi  is Interim Associate Dean of the College of Social Sciences. She completed her MS in Criminal Justice and her PhD in Public Policy from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Prior to joining the Dean’s Office, she taught a variety of courses at Fresno State including victimology, family violence, juvenile delinquency, statistics, and research methods as Faculty of the Department of Criminology. As a victimologist, she has studied crime victimization in Asian communities and crime. Her recent publications include a book with colleague Dr. Chadley James titled Victimology and Victim Assistance: Advocacy, Intervention, and Restoration. She has served on a number of community, national, and international boards, including the World Society of Victimology (WSV) and Central California Asian Pacific Women (CCAPW). She is a previous President of Fresno State’s Asian Faculty and Staff Association (AFSA). Jan  Van Dijk  is a Former Professor of Criminology of Leiden University and Emeritus Professor of Victimology and Human Security of the University of Tilburg, Netherlands. He was the Co-founder and first Chairperson of the National Organization for Victim Assistance in the Netherlands (1984–1989) and President of the World Society of Victimology (1997–2000). He authored over 200 articles on crime and criminal justice in academic journals (for an overview, see www.tilburguniversity.edu/jan.vandijk.htm). In 2011, he edited, together with Rianne Letschert, The New Faces of Victimhood: Globalization, Transnational Crimes and Victim Rights, published in the Global Justice Series of Springer Press (2011). In 2012, he edited, with A.  Tseloni and G.  Farrell, The International Crime Drop: New Directions in Research (Palgrave /Mac Millan, 2012), and was awarded the Stockholm Prize in Criminology for his continued leadership of the International

xxx

About the Authors

Crime Victims Survey. In 2014, the Ministry of Security and Justice of the Netherlands and the Dutch Fund for Victim Support jointly established the Jan Van Dijk Award for the best Master’s and PhD theses on victimology and victims’ rights from students of Dutch universities. Gema Varona  is a Lecturer in Victimology and Criminal Policy at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) and Senior Researcher at the Basque Institute of Criminology (Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain). In 1998, she was honored with the Junior Scholar Competition Award of the International Society of Criminology for her research comparing restorative justice in gypsy and non-gypsy communities. Former Coordinator of the Degree in Criminology (2013–2017), current Coordinator of the UPV/EHU MOOC on Victimology (2016–present), and Co-director of the Master in Victimology of UPV/EHU (2014–present), she is also the Coeditor of the Journal of Victimology (Revista de Victimología). She has authored books on migration and human rights, restorative justice, juries and the construction of the forensic truth, women’s local safety audits, and victims of terrorism and sexual abuse. Irvin Waller  is Professor Emeritus at the University of Ottawa. He uses evidence to convince governments across the world to prevent crime and protect victim rights. In his 50-year career, he was Director General of research in the Solicitor General of Canada in the 1970s, working on abolition of the death penalty and gun control. He received multiple awards internationally, starting with recognition of his trailblazing work to get the UN General Assembly to recognize rights for victims in 1985. He was the Founding Director in the 1990s of the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime, affiliated with the UN.  His best-known books Rights for Victims of Crime: Rebalancing Justice (2011) and Smarter Crime Control: A Guide to a Safer Future for Citizens, Communities, and Politicians (2014) are published in English, Chinese, and Spanish. His book Science and Secrets of Ending Violent Crime (2019) is about how to get effective crime prevention spread across the world. He is an active user of twitter to change the minds of decision-makers. Jo-Anne Wemmers  obtained her Doctorate in Criminology from the Faculty of Law at the University of Leiden (the Netherlands). She is currently a Full Professor at the School of Criminology of the Université de Montréal, Principal Researcher at the International Centre for Comparative Criminology, and Member of the Canadian Partnership for International Justice. Former Secretary General of the World Society of Victimology (2006–2009), she has published widely in the areas of victimology, comparative criminal justice, and restorative justice. Her books include Victimology: A Canadian Perspective (University of Toronto Press 2017), which has been translated into French (Les Presses de l’Université de Québec, 2017). In 2015, she was awarded a Certificate of Appreciation by the World Society of Victimology for her contribution to victimology. She is currently Editor of the International Review of Victimology.

Part I

New Perspectives and Approaches in Victimology

Chapter 1

Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology K. Jaishankar

Me, Marc and His Indelible Mark: A Cherished Journey I am very happy to be invited by the Editors of this Festschrift for Prof. Dr. Marc Groenhuijsen. Marc has travelled (and is still travelling) with me, in a journey, which I will always cherish. Notably, he was with me when I was a PhD Student until I became a Full Professor and he still continues to be with me as a friend, philosopher and guide. I first met Marc in the year 2000 (when I was a PhD Student), when he visited the Department of Criminology, University of Madras, Chennai, India. Though our meetings on those days were short, it was always fruitful in terms of knowledge dissemination. Though we had more online interactions, we also interacted in a few physical meetings at some significant victimology events (SASCV Jaipur, 2011; WSV Hague, 2012; SCS Stockholm, 2012; SASCV Kanyakumari, 2013; WSV Perth, 2015). In 2016, I became a Full Professor of Criminology and Head of the Department at Raksha Shakti University, Gujarat, India and met him at Jindal

Some parts of this chapter are derived from earlier publications of the author: Jaishankar, K. (2012). Victimization in the Cyber Space: Patterns and Trends. In S. Manacorda (Ed.). Cybercriminality: Finding a balance between freedom and security (pp. 91–106). Milan, Italy: International Scientific and Professional Advisory Council of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme (ISPAC). ISBN 978-88-96410-02-8 Jaishankar, K. (2013). Cyber Victimization: New Typology and Novel Trends of Interpersonal attacks on the Internet. In Korean Institute of Criminology (Ed.). Information Society and Cybercrime: Challenges for Criminology and Criminal Justice (pp.  31–47). Seoul, Korea: Korean Institute of Criminology. Research Report Series 13-B-01.ISBN 978-89-7366-002-5. Reproduced with permission. K. Jaishankar (*) School of Criminology and Crime Science (Block E), Raksha Shakti University (Police and Internal Security University), Lavad, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 J. Joseph, S. Jergenson (eds.), An International Perspective on Contemporary Developments in Victimology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41622-5_1

3

4

K. Jaishankar

Global University, New Delhi for the 18th International Congress on Criminology (December, 2016) and he rejoiced my success of becoming Full Professor. My interactions with Marc mentioned above are only some highlights. Our interactions are unfathomable, and our academic relationship continues… Marc is one of the pillars of my success in academia and with profound pride and gratitude, I would mention that, “Marc has made an indelible mark on my life”.

Introduction The internet has transformed many of our lives and now more people have started inhabiting in cyber space. However, as any technology has the possibility to be misused, internet is no different. Many of the dangers, threats, and annoyances that plague society in general can also be found on the Internet. Internet has provided an easy platform to offenders to perform various criminal activities in novel forms. Added with this is the nature of patterns of anonymity protection shields offered by various websites, which has helped the perpetrators to harass the victims in much more shrewd fashion than in the offline crime scenarios. Whereas some crimes such as illegally accessing victim’s private data, computer and computer networks and modifying the content, defamation, etc. are done to harm the good reputation of the victim, some other sorts of offenses like data theft, identity theft and even cyber terrorism are also done for personal gain, besides harming the reputation of the victim (Jaishankar 2012, 2013). Wall (2005, revised in 2010) has pointed out that the term cyber crime does not necessarily denote those crimes, which are recognized in the penal codes, but the media highlight this term. Wall (2001) has divided cyber crime into four categories: 1. Cyber-trespass – crossing boundaries into other people’s property and/or causing damage, e.g. hacking, defacement, viruses; 2. Cyber-deceptions and thefts – stealing (money, property), such as credit card fraud or intellectual property violations (a.k.a. piracy); 3. Cyber-pornography; 4. Cyber-violence  – doing psychological harm to, or inciting physical harm against others, thereby breaching laws pertaining to the protection of the person, such as hate speech or stalking (Jaishankar 2012, 2013). Wall (2005, revised in 2010, p. 82) prefers to analyze cyber crime as crimes that are mediated by computer networks and not necessarily crimes against machines. He mapped impact of deviant behavior influenced by cyber crime from four angles: a. Crime against machines especially integrity-related crimes encourage opportunities like harmful trespass. This may further develop traditional crimes using computers, like phreaking and chipping; hybrid cyber crime (which are born as traditional crimes but are more developed due to cyber space) like cracking / hacking, virus attacks, hactivism, etc.; and true cyber crimes like sending spams, denial of services, information warfare and parasite computing.

1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology

5

b. Crimes using machines like computer-related crimes may encourage crimes such as acquisition of domain or profile like theft or deception. This may further contribute to traditional crimes like frauds, pyramid schemes; hybrid crimes like multiple large scale fraud, 419 frauds, thefts and ID thefts; true cyber crimes like intellectual property crimes, online gambling, e-auction frauds and phishing. c. Crimes in the machine such as content-related crimes may encourage obscenity which may further form traditional crimes like trading sexual materials; hybrid crimes like online sex trade, cam-girl sites and also true cyber crimes like cyber sex and cyber pimping. d. Crimes in the machine, especially content-related crimes, may also encourage violence which may further motivate traditional crimes like stalking and personal harassment; hybrid crimes like general hate speech and organized paedophile rings and true cyber crimes like online grooming, organized bomb talks, targeted hate speech, etc. Wall (2005, revised in 2010, p.82). Though cyber crimes are termed in varied terminologies like computer crime, computer-­related crime, digital crime, information technology crime (Matt 2004), Internet crime (Wall 2001), virtual crime (Lastowka and Hunter 2004), e-crime (Yar 2012) and netcrime (Mann and Sutton 1998), it all signifies the application and utility of internet and telecommunication networks to commit these crimes (Jaishankar 2008). Even though some researchers feel cyber crimes as a case of “old wine in new bottles” (Grabosky 2001), “old wine in bottles of varying and fluid shape” (Yar 2005), or “new wine in no bottles” (Wall 1999), cyber crimes are unique (Yar 2005). Especially, victimization perspective of cyber crime is distinct in its character, compared to the conventional crimes. Cyber crime victimization defies the logic of physical proximity. Cyber crime offenders need not be physically proximate with their offenders unlike physical space crimes (Brenner 2004). An offender can victimize any person across the globe, sitting in any corner of the world, using his/her computer connected to a network (European Commission 2001). Also as cyber crime is an “automated crime” (using technology to multiply the number of “crimes”) someone can commit in a given period of time (Parker 1999, 2002; Arena 2001), several persons can be victimized with the same effort. This innovative nature of automation allows the offenders to victimize many in rapid and precise manner (IPWatchdog.com 2003). (For classification of cyber crimes, see, Carter 1995; Davis and Hutchison 1997; Deflem and Shutt 2006; Goodman and Brenner 2002; Wall 2001, 2010.) Many definitions of cyber crime were evolved in the pre and post millennium. Some of the definitions were simple and some were complex. Some focused on the crime, some the offender, some the victim. A notable metamorphosis in the new millennium cyber crime definitions is moving beyond the machines (hacking) and focusing on the humans, especially the victims (Halder and Jaishankar 2012). A simple definition of cyber crimes is provided by the Oxford Reference Online: “crimes committed over the Internet”. Though, multiple definitions (Statistics Canada 2002; Thomas and Loader 2000; Yar 2006) are available for cyber crimes, there are no consistent and statutory definitions (Yar 2005), and also defining cyber

6

K. Jaishankar

crime raises conceptual complexities (Smith et al. 2004). Matt’s (2004) definition of cyber crime gave a holistic focus on cyber crime from an offense perspective: Cyber crime encompasses all illegal activities where the computer, computer system, information net work or data is the target of the crime and those known illegal activities or crimes that are actively committed through or with the aid of computers, computer systems, information networks or data (p. 22).

The human element of cyber crime was included by the Convention on Cyber Crime (Council of Europe 2001). The Convention on Cyber Crime was one of the first legislation to think in the direction of humans while most of the definitions were concentrating on the machines (Halder and Jaishankar 2012). The Convention on Cyber Crime (Council of Europe 2001) included offences against children and “attacks on human emotions, banning usage of ‘improper words’ in the cyber space. This was originally meant to prevent usage of derogatory words, which may promote terrorism, danger to national security and/or racial hatred” (Halder and Jaishankar 2012, p. 14). The Convention on Cyber Crime also helped the law makers and the academics to change their earlier perspective on cyber crimes “i.e., everything is hacking or attack at e-commercial transactions. This drift helped to include emotional attack on internet users as offense and transmuted to a more advanced approach to look at it from individual victim’s perspective” (Halder and Jaishankar 2012, p.  14). It was Wall’s (2008) definition of cyber crime that first included ‘harm’ as a component. Wall (2008) explained cyber crime as “online insecurity and risk and it is widely used today to describe the crimes or harms that are committed using networked technologies” (p. 862). The inclusion of ‘harm’ gave a new focus to cyber crimes as it was inclined more to crimes against human emotions like stalking, harassing and bullying. Even though there were many definitions of cyber crime beyond Wall’s (2008) definition, only Halder and Jaishankar’s (2012) definition on cyber crime had the victimization perspective: Offences that are committed against individuals or groups of individuals with a criminal motive to intentionally harm the reputation of the victim or cause physical or mental harm to the victim directly or indirectly, using modern telecommunication networks such as Internet (Chat rooms, emails, notice boards and groups) and mobile phones (SMS/MMS) (p. 15). The types of cyber crimes that are included in the above definition are: hacking, morphing, spoofing, tampering the computer sources, obscene publication, trojan attacks, phishing, cyber stalking, cyber pornography, cyber defamation, cyber bullying, e-mail harassment, cyber blackmailing, cyber threatening, cyber murder, cyber terrorism and abetment of such offences (Halder and Jaishankar 2012, p. 15).

 yber Victimization: Creation of a New Typology (Jaishankar C 2012, 2013) As it is common with the public to think that cyber crime only means hacking (Yar 2006), it is to be noted that most of the scholars (Burgess-Proctor et al. 2010; Finn 2004; Hinduja and Patchin 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012; Landoll 2012; Li 2007;

1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology

7

Lipton 2011; Perreault 2011; Şahin et al. 2012; Sakellariou et al. 2012; Schiller and Gradinger 2013), excluding few (Alshalan 2006; Halder and Jaishankar 2008, 2009, 2011, 2015; McQuade 2009; Ngo and Paternoster 2011; Roberts 2008, 2009), are of the opinion, that cyber crime victimization equates to cyber bullying / cyber stalking victimization. A Google Scholar search will also make this clearly evident. While someone searches for cyber victims or cyber victimization in Google Scholar, the studies shown are mostly on cyber bullying and cyber stalking/harassment. Victimization is nothing but the other side of the coin. It is like viewing from the other side of the river. So branding only cyber bullying/stalking as victimization and not including other types of cyber crimes in the victimization perspective is not correct. Also it is found that whenever cyber victimization is analyzed, it is only examined from an individual perspective and not from a mass or system perspective. Not only individuals can be victimized by cyber crime but also the governments and corporations and society as well are victimized by cyber crime. The following victim typology tries to break the conventional perception of scholars towards cyber victimization.

Typology of Cyber Victimization (Jaishankar 2012, 2013) 1. Cyber Victimization of Governments • • • • •

Cyber attacks (including cyber terrorism and cyber warfare) Threats against Political Leaders Political Hactivism E voting Fraud Online Plagiarism/Scientific misconduct

2. Cyber Victimization of Corporations • • • • •

Hacking Insider Threat Cyber Squatting Digital Piracy / Copyright Infringement / Intellectual Property theft Cyber slacking / wandering of employees (Personal use of internet in workplace)

3. Cyber Victimization of Individuals or Interpersonal Cyber Victimization • Viruses, Malware, adware, spywares, Bots, botnets, zombies and remote controls etc. • Hacking • Cyber harassment: Cyber bullying / Peer Victimization /Cyber Stalking • Cyber hate • Cyber Racism • Cyber Grooming

8

K. Jaishankar

• • • • • • •

Child Pornography Victimization in the social networking sites Identity related cyber crime Victims of Virtual environments Scam victims (419, Lottery and Advance Fee Fraud, Phishing, Phreaking) Victims of Social Engineering Victims of content theft (blogs articles etc)

4. Victimless Crimes • • • • • •

Sexting E-Prostitution Sex chatting Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) / Online Addiction Online Pornography Online Gambling

 ovel Trends in Cyber Crime Victimization (Jaishankar N 2012, 2013) Development of Victim Turned Offenders There are many instances in the physical space crimes such as harassment and abuse where the victims turn into offenders. Most of these cases pertain to children and women, and a small body of growing literature is available on victim-offender overlap (Briggs 2003; Broidy et  al. 2006; Jennings et  al. 2010; Jennings et  al. 2011; 2012; Klevens et  al. 2002; Lauritsen and Laub 2007; Mustaine and Tewksbury 2000; Rumgay 2010; Shaffer 2003). Notably, online victim-offender overlap is a modern phenomenon (Umarhathab et al. 2009) and of late we could find instances where some victims have turned into offenders. I have come across cases which come to our Centre for Cyber Victim Counselling (an online counseling centre and NGO for victims of cyber crimes founded by Debarati Halder and me in 2009; more details are at www.cybervictims.org) where there are many requests from the victims seeking our assistance to hack the offenders email accounts or social networking site accounts. When we disagree citing our policy of non-interfering in others online accounts, they tend to move to professional hackers (Halder and Jaishankar 2012). However, we have tried to change their outlook to a certain extent, online victims try to take revenge by becoming offenders. In cases of money mules, who are recruited by the online offenders in the guise of providing a legitimate job, they “receive bad checks and write good ones and as (albeit perhaps innocent) co-conspirators are not protected” (Florêncio and Herley 2010, p. 4) by the laws of any country. Suresh and Paul (2010) assert that all money mules are not innocent. “Contrary to popular belief, mules are not innocent people

1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology

9

tricked into illegal business. They are typically mercenary volunteers with scant respect for the law – and for this very reason, they are turning professionals” (Suresh and Paul 2010, p. 498). Suresh and Paul’s (2010) argument is further strengthened by the 2011 survey of Financial Fraud Action UK (2011) and the National Fraud Authority (NFA) among the residents of Newham in East London. This survey found that 27 percent of victims of money mule schemes did not know that it is illegal and 87 percent did not report to police.

Growth of Victim Precipitated Crimes It has also been found that some of the victims have precipitated (caused) their own cyber victimization. While in physical space people tend to follow certain safety norms, they tend to ignore the same while they are in the cyberspace. In cases of phishing and money mules, it is the victims’ greed and innocent nature that the cyber criminals exploit. Many internet savvy users become victims of virus attacks because of their reckless nature of visiting pornographic sites and using torrents to download films, songs and other files. Norton’s (2011) first ever large scale research on cyber victimization found that 80 percent of their respondents became victims because of watching adult materials, online. Some of the internet users are not concerned about issues of privacy in social networking sites and become victims (Halder and Jaishankar 2009). They upload photographs exhibiting their intimacy with their girlfriends/boyfriends. Sometimes these photographs are used by blackmailers or sometimes they are morphed for blackmailing. In many cases of Nigerian 419 scams, the victims were very greedy and some even have gone to the extent of selling their own houses purportedly to receive a huge sum of money from the offender. Apart from exploiting the greedy nature of the victims, cyber offenders also exploit the fear of the victims, especially, using scareware (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2012). “By playing to Internet users’ fears that computers and information can be at risk, cybercrooks have been able to gain unprecedented access to machines while making hundreds of millions of dollars” (McAfee 2011, p. 7). Research on victims of cyber attacks of a university network by Michel Cukier and David Maimon, both from the University of Maryland, USA, found that the victims expose themselves to cyber attacks and they precipitate their own victimization. Their study applied routine activity theory and found that the “campus was more cyber-attacked during business hours than during down times like after midnight and on weekends” (Eddy 2011, para 3). Also the genuineness of some of the victims is questionable. The Norton study (2011) argues that the anonymous nature of the internet provides an opportunity to do illegal activities online which they might not do in the physical space. This supports my Space Transition Theory of Cyber Crimes (Jaishankar 2008). The Norton study shows that the victims are sometimes involved in illegal activities like downloading music and film files without paying, plagiarism, engaging in forms of online

10

K. Jaishankar

theft, misrepresentation, and defacement. Also some victims do not request permission from others to take their photographs from social networking sites. The Norton study found that nearly 80 percent of respondents became victims because of lack of genuineness.

Increase in Mobile Phone Victimization In the recent past, smartphones like iPhone and BlackBerry have created a revolution in the society. In addition to that, the introduction of new gadgets like iPad, tablets, and Android phones has changed the dimensions of information exchange. These mobile phones are no more mere phones; they are computers or extension of computers (House of Commons, UK 2012, p. 13). The mobile phones have great advantages and many a times it ensures the safety of an individual (Nasar et  al. 2007). However, these mobile phones also put individuals in danger. With the provision of Bluetooth, wireless and internet connection in these phones provides the same chance of victimization as of the users of the computers with internet connection. “The McAfee Threat Report for the third quarter of 2011 showed that mobile phone malware had doubled since 2009 and that the majority of new malware on mobile platforms had been targeted at Android phones” (House of Commons, UK 2012, p. 5). The Norton study (2011) found that 80 percent of the male respondents who use mobile phones have become victims of cyber crime. Also bullying through mobile phones has increased to a great extent (Campbell 2005; Kumar and Jaishankar 2007; Erentaitė et al. 2012). Research on child sexual exploitation in the UK found that the offenders initially victimize the children on the internet via computers; later, they move on to mobiles, especially smartphones to victimize the children. This methodology is also used for victimizing adults (Policy, Research & Media 2012).

 ulnerability of Children and Teens Increased V to a Greater Extent In the new millennium, there is a steep rise of children and teens using the Internet. They are more skilful than the adults in using the internet and mobile phones. They grasp the technology faster than adults and even become teachers of older persons in the usage of mobile phones and the internet. However, the same knowledge of the internet and mobile phones puts them in danger. Online predators may exploit their curiosity to understand many things, including sex (Wolak et al. 2008) and many children and teenagers become victim of cyber crimes. Wolak et al. (2006) study on online victimization of youth found that youth are susceptible to victimization and

1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology

11

they become victims of online sexual solicitation. A new study in the UK found a steep rise in online grooming for sexual exploitation since 2010. The study found that the victims were groomed via mobile phones and social networking sites such as Facebook, Orkut, and Twitter (Policy, Research & Media 2012). Alternatively, recent research found that youth and children have become more aware of their victimization online and there is a reduction of online sexual solicitation (Jones et  al. 2012). Though there may be a diminutive rise of awareness of cyber crime among a section of children and youth in the internet, still there are potential victims who are newer to the cyber space. Also, sexting, a new form of cyber crime in which a teen is both the offender as well as the victim, has created further victimization of children online. Sexting, though considered as a victimless crime (Jaishankar 2009a, b), brings in more potential victims online (Ngo et al. 2017). Recent research on sexting and personal victimization (Reyns et al. 2011) found that sexting not only makes them victims of sexting, but it makes them victims of several forms of online victimization.

Differential Victimization of Men and Women The risk taking behavior of men in the physical space and the vulnerability of women in the physical space are the same in the cyber space. However, the patterns of victimization in the cyber space show a differential aspect. The Norton study (2011) suggests that men are more susceptible to victimization than women as they take the risk of visiting pornographic sites and gambling sites and talking with strangers. The study found that 72 percent of men have become victims compared to 65 percent of women. “Men are also more vulnerable because nearly four times more men than women view adult and pornographic sites, while twice as many gamble online and go online dating” (Limsamarnphun 2011, para 4). The Norton study also found that men between 18–31 age groups who spend more time on the internet are vulnerable to victimization. When it comes to online women victims, they are more vulnerable to be a victim of cyber crime and also the impact of victimization is more on them compared to men. Especially women are prone to online harassment and stalking (Desai and Jaishankar 2007). This aspect is different when compared to men as they are not that much harassed or stalked online (Halder and Jaishankar 2012). Men become online victims because of their risky behaviour, but women become victims because of their mere presence online. Cyber stalking statistics (2010) of Working for Halting Online Abuse (WHOA) shows that there is an unequal ratio of men and women victims as well as harassers. Among 349 victims, 73% are women and 27% are men; whereas, 44.5% of harassers were men and 36.5% of harassers were women (Halder and Jaishankar 2012). Comparatively, fewer women than men report their online victimization to police. Clear statistics of online victmization of women are not available. Also the impact of victimization on women is different than men. Cyber crimes create a deeper wound in women (Halder and Jaishankar 2008; 2012).

12

K. Jaishankar

Halder and Jaishankar (2012) explain the impact of online victimization on women compared with men: When a man’s email id or private data stored in websites and also personal computers are accessed and modified in an unauthorized way, he can afford to live on by informing the police and his acquaintances. Indeed his reputation may be marred due to misuse of the personal data. Unlike a woman victim, he may not be subjected to gross humiliation by the society as a whole; he may neither be reduced to a mere ‘sex item’ like his female counterpart. His victimization may be judged only from the perspective of economic losses. On the contrary, a woman who may have turned into a victim may be ostracized by the society. Unlike her male counterpart, she may not be able to take the online humiliation so easily; it may engulf her with the feeling of shame and hatred for herself (p. 5).

 ack of Reporting Behaviour, Secondary Victimization L and Reliance on Online Private Policing Groups Underreporting of cyber crimes is commonly found (Wall 2001). Reporting cyber crimes is difficult for the victims as most of the victims are educated and knowledgeable. Victims might feel that the police will abuse or ridicule them because of their victimization. Especially women victims cite privacy issues for not reporting to police (Halder and Jaishankar 2012). “Many victims of cyber-crimes may not realize their victimization until long after the event. Victims may be reluctant to report cyber-crimes due to embarrassment, not knowing where or how to report the crime, or the size of the loss” (Roberts 2008, p. 580). Also there are instances where secondary victimization is highly prevalent in cyber crime cases, especially cyber gender harassment (Halder and Jaishankar 2011). Still the criminal justice system including police, prosecutors and judiciary of many countries are not ready to solve the cyber crime cases and provide justice to the victims. This has pushed the victims towards a new trend of reporting their victimization to agencies other than the police. Because of the secondary victimization and lack of proper resources with the criminal justice system, now, victims prefer non-governmental agencies which work in “private policing” (Yar 2010) of the internet. In the new millennium, many NGO’s have come to support and assist the cyber crime victims. The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) of UK, Working to Halt Online Abuse (WHOA) of the USA, Cyberangels of the USA, and the Centre for Cyber Victim Counselling (CCVC) of India are some of the NGO’s that cyber victims rely upon to report their victimization (Halder and Jaishankar 2012).

1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology

13

 yber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-first C Century Victimology Since Wall’s categorization of cyber crimes in four sectors in 2005, trends and typology of cyber crimes are growing. Revenge porn, vishing and smishing, vamping, etc. are some of the examples. Further, as can be seen from the ISIS example, the concept of cyber terrorism is also undergoing gross changes. Fundamentalists no longer restrict their terror activities to mass attacking the protected systems or injecting a virus; they openly challenge the freedom of speech and expression laws and basic human rights by way of depicting violent images. They have their own websites and servers which can operate independently. They are using internet giants like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, etc. to spread their messages to the masses. Similarly, scammers and fraudsters are also expanding their operative mechanism through e-corporate portals, social networking sites, etc. There is a need to restructure the profiles of types of cyber victimization on the basis of the above such underpinning issues (Jaishankar and Halder Forthcoming). Further, it needs to be noted that the profiles of the victims are also changing. The data contribution by the internet users (including government, corporate sectors and private individuals) and internet companies allure cyber criminals to do more criminal activities. Consider the examples of Google Maps or Google Glass; the applications pose threats to privacy in numerous ways. The victims of such privacy infringement can be either the government or the private individual or even the corporate sectors. Also, consider the case of Wikileaks; the whistle blower has turned into a fugitive due to his changed status as ‘criminal’. But at the same time, his security and privacy is jeopardized due to constant virtual as well as real life surveillance. Similarly, revenge porn victims may have to suffer due to their own contribution of the sexted images. There is an imperative need to study the profiles of cyber victims from this light (Jaishankar and Halder Forthcoming). Based on the above issues, I proposed a new sub-discipline of Victimology, Cyber Victimology in my keynote speech at the 15th International Symposium of the World Society of Victimology (WSV) at Perth, Western Australia held during 5–9, July 2015. I coined the term “Cyber Victimology” and I defined cyber victimology as “the study of forms of online victimization, its impact on victims, and responses of society and systems” (Jaishankar 2015). Cyber Victimology or the Victimology of cyber crimes becomes an essential project due to the imminent need for understanding of the subject from theoretical as well as practical aspects. Victims’ rights in the cyber space still need to be codified in many jurisdictions. Such rights are largely governed by the privacy rights of individuals in the real space in many jurisdictions. But this right is again not clearly explained in many countries. Further, the right to privacy is constantly breached due to the State’s right to surveillance. Right to privacy is also affected by the ever growing notions of freedom of speech and expression on the internet. Even though victim’s rights in the cyber space can be secured by taking up measures that are promised by ‘right to be forgotten’, the same is still not properly explained in the

14

K. Jaishankar

legal perspective of transnational jurisdictions. In brief, victim’s right in the cyber space still suffers from a lacuna in understandings and this needs to be addressed (Jaishankar and Halder Forthcoming). When dealing with cyber victimology, it also becomes necessary to understand the effects of a victim’s response towards victimization in the cyber space and causes of re-victimization. Cyber victimology also will deal with the subject with the help of criminological and victimological theories, including Space Transition Theory of Cyber Crimes (Jaishankar 2008) and Irrational Coping Theory (Halder and Jaishankar 2015) in the context of cyber space victimization. This sub-­discipline also will propose useful guidelines that may help to curb the cyber crimes and ensure the rights of the victims (Jaishankar and Halder Forthcoming).

Conclusion The trends of cyber crime victimization have given a new dimension to the contemporary cyber victim behaviour analysis. It has changed the conventional perspective of victimologists, criminologists, police and criminal justice officials towards cyber crimes, criminal behaviour and victims. Moreover, the complexities involved in the investigation of cyber crime victimization have brought a new culture among police agencies. The cyber crime victimization has made law enforcers to be more techno savvy than before. It has become a situation like; either learn technology or leave it to the technocrats. Also as the criminal justice system needs to deliver justice to the victims of cyber crimes, new laws are promulgated in almost all the countries (Halder et al. 2013; Jaishankar and Halder Forthcoming). Cyber crime victims have not received the same attention by the media, criminal justice system and academics as that of the cyber crime offenders (Wall 2005). The reason is that the victims do not provide the kind of novelty the offenders provide. The victims of cyber crimes are not much more unique than the victims of conventional crimes, though, they have some distinctive characteristics. They may have created a trap for themselves on the internet and hence they become engulfed in shame, trauma as well as self-hatred. The victims cannot be bounded in any particular age group, nationality, race, religion; they can be children, teenagers, males, females, even aged net surfers or even persons who may be oblivious of the fact that s/he is being attacked in the internet, by fake mails. Adequate attention to these victims from the criminal justice officials as well as victim service providers is needed. Also research on these victims is most needed. It will help to prevent and mitigate further victimization and provide policy directions to the governments (Jaishankar and Halder Forthcoming). The current status of cyber crime victimization needs to be holistically studied in detail and I believe the proposed sub-­ discipline of victimology, “Cyber Victimology”, will be ready to lend a hand in this direction.

1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology

15

Acknowledgement  I sincerely thank Prof. Dr. Debarati Halder for her inputs and constructive criticisms that greatly enhanced the quality of this chapter.

References Alshalan, A. (2006). Cyber-crime fear and victimization: An analysis of a national survey. PhD Dissertation submitted to Mississippi State University. Arena, K. (2001). U.S. targets porn site’s customers, CNN.com web site (Aug. 8, 2001), Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/08/08/ashcroft.childporn. Brenner, S. (2004). Toward a criminal law for cyberspace: Distributed security. Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law, 10(2), 1–105. Briggs, F. (2003). From victim to offender: How child sexual abuse victims become offenders. NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Broidy, L. M., Daday, J. K., Crandall, C. S., Sklar, D. P., & Jost, P.F. (2006). Exploring demographic, structural, and behavioral overlap among homicide offenders and victims. Homicide Studies, 10, 155–180. Burgess-Proctor, A., Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and online harassment: Reconceptualizing the victimization of adolescent girls. In V. Garcia & J. Clifford (Eds.). Female crime victims: Reality reconsidered (p. 162–176). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Campbell, M. A. (2005). Cyber bullying: An old problem in a new guise? Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 15(1), 68–76. Carter, D. (1995). Computer crime categories: How techno-criminals operate. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 64(7), 21. Council of Europe. (2001). – Convention on Cybercrime. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa. eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/libe/dv/7_conv_budapest_/7_conv_budapest_en.pdf. Davis, R., & Hutchison, S. (1997). Computer crime in Canada. Toronto: Thomson Canada Limited. Deflem, M., & Shutt, J. E. (2006). Law enforcement and computer security threats and measures. In H.  Bidgoli (Ed.), The handbook of information security, volume 2: information warfare; social, legal, and international issues; and security foundations (pp. 200–209). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Desai, M., & Jaishankar, K. (2007). Cyber stalking victimization of girl students: an empirical study. Presentation in the Second International Conference on Victimology and Sixth Biennial Conference of the Indian Society of Victimology, Chennai, India 9–11, February, 2007. Eddy, N. (30th November, 2011). Cyber-crime victims often provide access unwittingly: report. Security. Retrieved from http://www.channelinsider.com/c/a/Security/ Cybercrime-Victims-Often-Provide-Access-Unwittingly-Report-549746. Erentaitė, R., Bergman, L.  R. & Žukauskienė, R. (2012). Cross-contextual stability of bullying victimization: A person-oriented analysis of cyber and traditional bullying experiences among adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53(2), 181–190. European Commission (2001). Communication from the European Commission to the Council and the European Parliament 1.1, COM, 890 final, at 9 (Brussels, Jan. 26, 2001), Retrieved from http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/eif/InternetPoliciesSite/Crime/CrimeCommEN.html. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (2012). Nigerian Letter or “419” Fraud. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety/common-fraud-schemes/nigerian-letter-or-419-fraud Financial Fraud Action UK (2011). East Londoners at greatest risk of falling for money laundering scam. Retrieved from http://www.financialfraudaction.org.uk/cms/assets/1/ MoneyMulesRelease.pdf. Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(4), 468–483.

16

K. Jaishankar

Florêncio, D., & Herley, C. (2010). Phishing and money mules. Redmond, WA, USA: Microsoft Research, One Microsoft Way. Retrieved from http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/143095/ mules.pdf Goodman, M., & Brenner, S. (2002). The emerging consensus on criminal conduct in cyberspace. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 10(2), 139–223. https://doi. org/10.1093/ijlit/10.2.139 Grabosky, P. (2001). Virtual criminality: Old wine in new bottles? Social & Legal Studies, 10, 243–49. Halder, D., & Jaishankar, K. (2008). Cyber crimes against women in India: Problems, perspectives and solutions. TMC Academy Journal, Singapore, 3(1), 48–62. Halder, D., & Jaishankar, K. (2009). Cyber socializing and victimization of women. Temida - The journal on victimization, human rights and gender, September 2009, 12(3), 5–26. Halder D., & Jaishankar, K. (2011). Cyber gender harassment and secondary victimization: a comparative analysis of US, UK and India. Victims and Offenders, 6(4), 386–398. Halder, D., & Jaishankar. K. (2012) Cyber crime and victimization of women: Laws, rights, and regulations. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. Halder, D., Jaishankar, K., Periyar, E., & Sivakumar, R. (2013). Cyber victimization in India: Preliminary study (pp. 115–136). In K. Jaishankar & N. Ronel (2013). (Eds.), Global criminology: Crime and victimization in the globalized era. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group. Halder, D., & Jaishankar, K. (2015). Irrational coping theory and Positive Criminology: A frame work to protect victims of cyber crime. In N. Ronel and D. Segev (eds.), Positive Criminology (pp. 276–291). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-74856-8. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2005). Research summary: Cyberbullying victimization. Preliminary findings from an online survey of Internet-using adolescents. Retrieved from http://www. cyberbullying.us/cyberbullying_victimization.pdf. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89–112. Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 1–29. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012). School climate 2.0: Preventing cyberbullying and sexting one classroom at a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. House of Commons, UK (2012). Malware and cyber crime. Twelfth report of session 2010–12. London, UK: House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee. IPWatchdog.com (2003). About cyber crime, IPWatchdog.com Web Site. Retrieved on from http:// www.ipwatchdog.com/cybercrimes.html. Jaishankar K., (2008). Space transition theory of cyber crimes. In F. Schmallager, & M. Pittaro (Eds.), Crimes of the Internet (pp. 283–301). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Jaishankar K., (2009a). Sexting: How do we protect the victim turned offender?, Presentation at the Workshop on “Victim Protection” in the International Conference on “Protecting Children from Sexual Offenders in the Information Technology Era” organized by the International Scientific and Professional Advisory Council of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme (ISPAC), during December 11–13, 2009 at Courmeyeur, Mont Blanc, Italy. Jaishankar, K. (2009b). Sexting: A new form of victimless crime. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(1), 21–25. Jaishankar, K. (2012). Victimization in the cyber space: Patterns and trends. In S.  Manacorda (Ed.). Cybercriminality: Finding a balance between freedom and security (pp. 91–106). Milan, Italy: International Scientific and Professional Advisory Council of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme (ISPAC). ISBN 978-88-96410-02-8

1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology

17

Jaishankar, K. (2013). Cyber Victimization: New Typology and Novel Trends of Interpersonal attacks on the Internet. In Korean Institute of Criminology (Ed.). Information society and cybercrime: Challenges for criminology and criminal justice (pp.  31–47). Seoul, Korea: Korean Institute of Criminology. Research Report Series 13-B-01. ISBN 978-89-7366-002-5. Jaishankar, K. (2015).“Cybercrime victimization: New wine into old wineskins?”. Keynote Presentation at the 15th World Society of Victimology Symposium, organized by WSV, Victims Support Australia, Angelhands Inc. and Australian Institute of Criminology held during 5 – 9, July 2015, at Perth, Australia. Jaishankar, K., & Halder, D. (Forthcoming). Cyber victimology: Decoding cyber crimevictimization. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. ISBN: 978-14-987848-9-4. Jennings, W.  G., Higgins, G.  E., Tewksbury, R., Gover, A.  R., & Piquero, A.  R. (2010). A Longitudinal assessment of the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2147–2174. Jennings, W. G., Park, M., Tomsich, E. A., Gover, A. R., & Akers, R. L. (2011). Assessing the overlap in dating violence perpetration and victimization among South Korean college students: the influence of social learning and self-control. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(2), 188–206. Jennings, W. G., Piquero, A. R., & Reingle, J. M. (2012). On the overlap between victimization and offending: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(1), 16–26. Jones, L.  M., Mitchell, K.  J., & Finkelhor, D. (2012). Trends in youth internet victimization: findings from three youth internet safety surveys 2000-2010. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(2), 179–86. Klevens, J., Duque, L. F., & Ramírez, C. (2002). The victim-offender overlap and routine activities: Results from a cross-sectional study in Bogotá, Columbia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 206–216. Kumar, A.  R., & Jaishankar, K. (2007). Cyber bullying using mobile phones: A study on victimization and perpetration among school students. Presentation in the Second International Conference on Victimology and Sixth Biennial Conference of the Indian Society of Victimology, Chennai, India 9–11, February, 2007. Landoll, R. R. (2012). The new frontier of peer victimization: Prospective associations between adolescents’ on-line peer victimization and internalizing symptoms. Open Access Dissertations. Paper 820. Retrieved on 15th August 2013 from http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/ oa_dissertations/820 Lastowka, F.G., & Hunter, D. (2004). Virtual crimes. New York Law School Law Review, 49, 293–316. Lauritsen, J. L., & Laub, J. H. ( 2007). Understanding the link between victimization and offending: New reflections on an old idea. Crime Prevention Studies, 22, 55–75. Li, Q. (2007). Bullying in the new playground: Research into cyberbullying and cyber victimisation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4), 435–454. Limsamarnphun, N. (2011). Is your data safe and secure? Retrieved on 15 January 2012 fromhttp:// www.nationmultimedia.com/new/opinion/Is-your-data-safe-and-secure-30166572.html Lipton, J.  D. (2011). Combating cyber-victimization. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 26, 1103–1156. Mann, D., & Sutton, M. (1998). NetCrime. More change in the organisation of thieving. British Journal of Criminology, 38(2), 201–228. Matt, S. M. (2004). Cybercrime: A comparative law analysis. Unpublished Dissertation submitted for the Degree of Magister Legum (LLM) at the University of South Africa. Retrieved from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/10500/2056/4/02chapter2.pdf. McAfee. (2011). A good decade for cybercrime: McAfee’s look back at ten years of cybercrime, report. Retrieved from http://www.mcafee.com/ca/resources/reports/rp-good-decade-forcybercrime.pdf. McQuade, S. (ed.), (2009). The Encyclopedia of Cybercrime. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

18

K. Jaishankar

Mustaine, E.  E., & Tewksbury, R. (2000). Comparing the lifestyles of victims, offenders, and victim-offenders: A routine activity theory assessment of similarities and differences for criminal incident participants. Sociological Focus, 33, 339–362. Nasar, J., Hecht, P., & Wener, R. (2007). ‘Call if you have trouble’: Mobile phones and safety among college students. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(4), 863–873. Ngo, F. T., & Paternoster, R. (2011). Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5(1), 773–793. Ngo F., Jaishankar, K., & Agustina, J. R. (2017). Sexting: Current research gaps and legislative issues. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11(2), 161–168. Norton (2011). Norton cybercrime report: The human impact. Retrieved from http://us.norton. com/theme.jsp?themeid=cybercrime_report. Parker, D. (1999). Automated crime, information security. Retrieved from http://www.infosecuritymag.com/articles/1999/autocrime.shtml. Parker, D. (2002). Automated crime, windowsecurity.com web site (Oct. 16, 2002), Retrieved from http://secinf.net/misc/Automated_Crime_.html. Perreault, S. (2011). Self-reported Internet victimization in Canada, 2009. Statistics Canada, Ministry of Industry. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/ article/11530-eng.htm. Policy, Research & Media. (January 2012). Cutting them free: How is the UK progressing in protecting its children from sexual exploitation? Retrieved from http://www.barnardos.org.uk/ cuttingthemfree.pdf. Reyns, B. W., Burek, M. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2011). The unintended consequences of digital technology: exploring the relationship between sexting and cybervictimization. Journal of Crime and Justice. iFirst, doi: 10.1080/0735648X.2011.641816, Available online: 7 Dec 2011. Roberts, L. (2008). Cyber-victimisation in Australia: Extent, impact on individuals and responses. TILES Briefing Paper No. 6. Roberts, L.  D. (2009). Cyber-Victimization. In R.  Luppicini & R.  Adell (Eds.), Handbook of research on technoethics (pp. 575–592). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. Rumgay, J. (2010). When victims become offenders: in search of coherence in policy and practice. Report of the Fawcett Society. Retrieved from http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/ When%20Victims%20Become%20Offenders%20Report%2014.12.04.pdf. Şahin, M., Aydin, B., & Sari, S. V. (2012). Cyber bullying, cyber victimization and psychological symptoms: A study in adolescents. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 41(1), 53–59. Sakellariou, T., Carroll, A., & Houghton, S. (2012). Rates of cyber victimization and bullying among male Australian primary and high school students. School Psychology International, 33, 533–549. Schiller, E.  M., & Gradinger, P. (2013). Combating Cyberbullying and Cybervictimization. Presentation on 15th April, 2013 at College of Education, University of Arizona. Shaffer, J. N. (2003). The victim-offender overlap: Specifying the role of peer groups. Unpublished Doctoral thesis submitted to the Pennsylvania State University, USA. Smith, R., Grabosky, P., & Urbas, G. (2004). Cyber criminals on trial. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Statistics Canada (2002). Cyber-crime: issues, data sources and feasibility of collecting policereported statistics. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Suresh, P., & Paul, J. (2010). Management of banking and financial services. Pearson: New Delhi. Thomas, D., & Loader, B. (2000). Cybercrime in the information age. In: D.  Thomas and B. Loader, (eds.). Cybercrime: Law Enforcement, Security and Surveillance in the Information Age (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.

1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology

19

Umarhathab, S., Rao, G. D. R., & Jaishankar, K. (2009). Cyber crimes in India: a study of emerging patterns of perpetration and victimization in Chennai city. Pakistan Journal of Criminology, 1(1), 51–66. Wall, D. S. (1999). Cybercrimes: new wine, no bottles? In P. Davies, P. Francis & V. Jupp (eds.), Invisible crimes: their victims and their regulation (pp. 105–39). London: Macmillan, Wall, D.  S. (2001). Cyber crimes and the internet. In D.  Wall (ed.) Crime and the internet (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge. Wall, D. S. (2005). The internet as a conduit for criminal activity. In A. Pattavina (Ed.), Information technology and the criminal justice system (pp. 78–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wall, D. S. (2008). Cybercrime and the culture of fear: Social science fiction(s) and the production of knowledge about cybercrime. Information Communication and Society, 11(6), 861–884. Wall, D. S. (2010). Cyber crimes. Class notes, masters course in criminology and law. School of Law, University of Leeds. On personal communication. WHOA. (2010). Cyber stalking statistics. Retrieved from http://www.haltabuse.org/resources/ stats/2010stats.pdf. Wolak, J.  Mitchell, K.  J., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online victimization of youth: 5 years later. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K., & Ybarra, M. (2008). Online “predators” and their victims: myths, realities, and implications for prevention and treatment. American Psychologist, 63, 111–128. Yar, M. (2005). The novelty of ‘cyber crime’: An assessment in light of routine activity theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2(4), 407–427: Yar, M. (2006). Cybercrime and Society. London: Sage Publications. Yar, M. (2010). The private policing of internet crime. In Y. Jewkes & M. Yar. (Eds.), Handbook of internet crime (pp. 546–561). Cullompton: Willan Publishers. Yar, M. (2012) E-Crime 2.0: the criminological landscape of new social media. Information & Communications Technology Law, 21(3), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360083 4.2012.744224

Chapter 2

From Victim to Survivor to Overcomer Sarah Ben-David

Introduction There is very little if any attention in the literature to the concept of self-identity or self-definition of victimhood, and of the willingness to remain in the role, or the status of a Victim. A byproduct of this neglect is that the term Overcomer did not gain attention in research or practice. In addition, the differences between the terms Victim/Survivor/Thriver and self-definition of an Overcomer is not in the focus of the study of human behavior in most scientific criminological, victimological and psychological inquiry. In essence, the self-definition as a Victim or as a Survivor is related to a factual victimization event, and the fact that the person survived this event, with or without physical or financial damages. But what is more important is that there are people whose self-presentation and self-definition was changed after the victimization incident, and they define, feel or consider themselves as Victims, Survivors or Thriver Victims and not as Overcomer. The idea of the Overcomer self-identity came to me from three examples below: A student in a victimology class, before responding to a general question that was asked of the students, stated: “First I have to tell you that I am a Victim of an assault and lost two fingers.” Another student in a seminar came to my office to discuss her seminar work (the topic was NOT related to victimology) and said: “I must tell you that when I was 5 years old my father murdered my mother.” A totally different experience was told to me by Dr. Levitt, a friend of mine, a physician. He told me that he had asked a patient with a broken leg that came to his clinic, assisted by her daughter, “Did you have any traumatic experience in the past? She said, “Never in my life, the fall and the broken leg is the first such case.” Her daughter asked “My father died several years ago – was it not a traumatic event?" The mother said “Yes, you are right.” And then the daughter told the physician: “I have never considered my mother as a ‘widow’, but a woman that her husband died.” S. Ben-David (*) Department of Criminology, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 J. Joseph, S. Jergenson (eds.), An International Perspective on Contemporary Developments in Victimology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41622-5_2

21

22

S. Ben-David

More interesting examples are two women in my gym class; both immigrated to Israel with their husbands, one from Canada and the other from USA. They are now about 80 years old and have grown-up children and grandchildren. Myself and all the women in our gym class knew that one of them - Miriam, is a holocaust Survivor. However, we all knew that Hana immigrated to Israel several years ago from Canada. Recently, she came to the class and told us that her mother wrote a book about their experience in World War II and their survival of the Nazis’ persecution. One of us said “We were sure that you were born in Canada, you have a Canadian accent and you have exhibited great positivism, resilience, and self-empowerment.” Then she showed us the tattooed number of the Nazi camps she had on her arm. We had no idea that she survived the Nazi’s persecution because she is the embodiment of strength, confidence, trustworthiness, and a vibrant personality. These events gave me the insight that there are actually not three phases of victimhood described in the literature: Victim, Survivor, and Thriver, but that there is a fourth phase that of an Overcomer.

Victim Self Identification The first identity often embraced by those who have been victimized is that of Victim. Although there have been major developments in the field of Victimology, there is still no agreement on the definition of a Victim, and the literature is rich with definitions of Victims from different standpoints and theoretical perspective (Ben-­ David 2000). However, the Oxford English Dictionary states that a Victim is: “a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action: Victim of domestic violence, earthquake Victims. It is a person who has come to feel helpless and passive in the face of misfortune of ill-treatment. A Victim is someone upon whom an act is committed against his or her will and individual in the Victim stage feels as though he or she is still in the trauma, no matter how long ago the actual traumatic incident(s) occurred”. It is a passive word to describe a person who has lived through traumatic events and victimhood and suggests passivity and lack of agency regarding one’s victimization. The identity implies that the individual views the victimization as resulting from forces beyond his/her control. It connotes a sense of injury, injustice, helplessness, vulnerability, fragility, self-­ pity, and discouragement. The Victim may also experience numbness, defeat, shame, and self-hatred. That Victim is someone who has been victimized or is still in the process of victimization to abuse or a criminal act. In addition, the Victim often loses his/her status, and most of the resources, and more importantly, sometimes even a sense of loss of control accompanied with feelings of vulnerability and believes that the future is unpredictable (Turner et al. 2010). Regardless of what the traumatic event was, where or when the victimization occurred, it was a crucial and important event in a person’s life, and not something that one should feel guilty or shameful about. Although this event changes the definition, or the title of a person, or adds a label  – that of a Victim  – it should be

2  From Victim to Survivor to Overcomer

23

understood as a difficult event in the person’s life, and not as something that the person should feel guilty, or shameful about. Some of the Victims may feel the impact of the victimization for a long time. In addition, some may feel that they lack choices, and that they have only few, if any, possibilities of change, and that they have a shortened future. Because of the victimization, Victims often have a weaker sense of control over their life and loss of security. They feel guilt or shame, or they experience inward directed feelings about experiences of victimization (Levens 1976; Whiston 1981). This combination of thoughts leads to little planning for the future and a preoccupation with the past (Dillmann 2011). In Victim mentality, they identify with their trauma and pain. The question is why those who have been victimized or had a traumatic event in their lives choose to define and regard themselves, as Victims, and adopt the label of a Survivor self-identity, while others may consciously reject this ‘label’ (Young-­ Rifai 1979). The experience of being victimized is the first step of the Victim labeling process. Victims of crime are at risk for experiencing a range of psychological and physical problems. Consequently, they often seek help from social agencies which, through social assistance programs, can provide economic and legal support as well as other initial benefits such as medical care and economic security. Some of these economic benefits are sometimes a key factor in the willingness of the Victim to remain in the role of a Victim because these benefits often greatly exceed the average income of many Victims of crime (Lyon 1978; Glazer 1975). To gain these benefits of these organizations, a person must be accredited and labeled as a Victim. Some Victims may become used to the psychological support, develop a dependency on these programs and show resistance to leave this support, and the role of a Victim (Friday 1980; Levens 1976). Unfortunately, Victim’s assistance programs, are unaware, or what’s worse do not try to avoid these feelings and the dependency on the agencies. Regrettably, this status of a Victim is both a blessing and a curse, because in reality it works as instrumental reinforcement, and a ‘dependency’ trap. These social programs may allow those who “won” the title of a Victim to stay in this role to develop reliance on the benefits of the Victim’s programs, and to continue the identity of a ‘Victim’. However, this dependency can result in a Victim mentality and the self-identity of a Victim. In addition, for some Victims, these benefits can become intertwined with the individual’s way of life, thus making it difficult for these Victims to move beyond this phase of the post-victimization process even after it seems that they have recovered from most of the physical injuries and living a normal life. These benefits can also become intertwined with the individual’s identity, making it all the more difficult to grow beyond this phase. They can, therefore, grow into the role of career Victim which is characterized by a strong feeling of powerlessness and learnt helplessness. Learnt helplessness, is a phenomenon describing a person who does not act when facing a problem. This failure to cope is a result of a feeling of powerlessness or a perceived disability to act toward an end (Seligman 1973; Levens 1976; Dussich and Jacobsen 1981). These are unfortunately some of the

24

S. Ben-David

results of the settling-in process, and some of the elements in many Victim’s programs. Moreover, some of these Victim assistance programs, have a dehumanizing process, or relabeling process, as they tend to place “overemphasis on Victims as ‘objects of proof’ rather than people in need of services” (Dussich 1981). In general, this self-perception of a Victim is a product of many factors, such as the feelings of inability to cope with failure, and with the outcomes of the criminal act. Often it is accompanied with the feeling of incapability to plan and deal with every day demands, resulting in rejecting responsibility for one’s life (Turner et al. 2010). To sum up, Victims face a process of negative labeling, relabeling, tagging, defining, and segregating, both by society and programs. For the Victims this process may be conscious or unconscious. For some of them the result is that they are perceived not only by others and by official organizations, but also by themselves, as “a Victim”. What is worse is that many of them may be willing to continue and establish the identity and status of a Victim for a long time, without the motivation of moving on to the phase in the post-victimization process. Becoming a Victim, in other words, is a social process that starts with a criminal offence, but also requires a cognitive decision by the Victim, the individuals against whom it was directed, to perceive himself/herself as a Victim and adopt the status of Victims as part of his/her personal identity.

Survivor’s Self Identity While a person has had no choice about being victimized, he or she does have a choice about growing to the place of a Survivor and to grow from the self-identity of a Victim to that of a Survivor (Jordan 2013; Mangelsdorf and Eid 2015), regardless of the traumatic event, its causes and its outcome. However, while the term “Victim” might be seen in a negative sense, because it is often perceived as implying stereotypes of vulnerability, passivity and weakness, the term “Survivor” can entail benefits such as recognition, validation, support and compensation (Dillenburger et al. 2006). Cambridge dictionary defines the word “Survivor” as: “a person who is able to continue living their life successfully despite experiencing difficulties”. Oxford dictionary has a more elaborated definition: “A person who survives, especially a person remaining alive after an event in which others have died.” It must be acknowledged that the transition from a Victim to a Survivor is not a simple nor an easy one for many of the Victims, but those who are determined and get support from family, friends and Victim’s support agencies may succeed in this process and reach the self-definition and the status of a Survivor. Survival is a term that is associated with strength, optimism, positive coping with the negative experience, traumatic event, its causes and its outcome (Jordan 2013). The term survivorship implies that a person is resilient after being a Victim of crime physically, socially, psychologically, and spiritually. With no regard to the

2  From Victim to Survivor to Overcomer

25

victimization event, in comparison to that of a Victim, the title, or role, of a Survivor carries different connotation. Surviving conveys a person who is trying to take control of his/her own life, is willing to learn to live again after experiencing victimization. Survivors are in the healing stage and view themselves as being traumatized but healing from the trauma and developing a sense of hopefulness (Salazar and Casto 2008). The Survivor stage begins with the realization of individuals who have experienced victimization that it was a hard and difficult event in their life, and they realize that they have survived the trauma and have grown through the Victim stage. This understanding is actually the beginning of the integration of the trauma into their lives (Jordan 2013). At this stage, the individual would have gained a greater understanding of the event and the impact on his or her life. He/she identifies the strengths and perseverance to move forward in life (Roddick 2015). Most survivors take months or years to reach this stage of recovery during which they feel that their wounds are healing, and they can deal with the trauma of the event. Also, the path to survivorship is not linear because some Survivors experience setbacks before they reach the point where they experience resilience (Roddick 2015). This stage is the second one on the way to successfully overcoming the effects of the victimization. It must be acknowledged that there may be conscious and unconscious temptation to stay at the Survivor stage as there are compensation, both financial and spiritual, available for Survivors. Survivors’ organizations offer financial and spiritual support, a sense of belonging. Most people are content to reach the stage of Survivorhood because they feel that they can manage their challenges and have a better understanding of themselves and their experiences (Roddick 2015). However, those that reject the self-identity of a Survivor, have the power and the determination to grow and leave the status and the definition of a Survivor and will begin the development of the status and the self-­ perception of a Thriver.

Thriver Self Identity The next step is the Thriver stage. The meaning of the word thrive according the Oxford dictionary is  – “Prosperous and growing; and to thrive means  - grow or develop well or vigorously”. This stage is the last one before the full recovery and the self-perception as an Overcomer. The words “Thrive” and “Victim” have very different connotations. What is so different about the term “thrive” is that it implies that people are beginning to take control of their own lives, but the person is still fighting, whether through the judicial system in order to bring justice to the perpetrator, to gain awareness for the cause, or to learn to live after experiencing an assault. In the literature on the development or the healing process from victimization there is the reference to the development of an individual from Victim stage to that of a Survivor and from Survivor to Thriver. A key realization of this stage is that an

26

S. Ben-David

individual has gotten through the trauma intact, or mostly intact. This understanding allows the person to begin integrating the trauma into his or her life story, to take control of life, and to recognize potential for change and growth (Dillmann 2011). On an emotional level, feelings of strength, empowerment, compassion, resilience, and self-determination overshadow the emotions experienced within the Victim stage. In addition, the individual is less pessimistic, and begins to recognize and embrace new possibilities (Leisenring 2006). In this stage the Victims come to terms with their victimization and develop healthier behaviors and relationships and believe that there are long-term options. In this stage, the healing process is at the point when the Victims have achieved the general realization that they are in general satisfied with their life. They begin to feel strong and confident, and truly believe that there are resources and choices for them (Lifton and Olson 1976). Those at this stage of recovery are not defined by their experiences and feel healed, safe, motivated, and understand what the event means and the impact it has made on his or her life (Roddick 2015). However, the term thrive conveys that the person is still fighting, whether through the judicial system in order to bring justice to the perpetrator, to gain awareness for the cause, or to learn to live after experiencing the victimization (Mangelsdorf and Eid 2015).

Overcomer Self Identity Every person who is victimized has the right to become what I would refer to as an “Overcomer” of victimization. However, some may feel satisfied at being at the Thriver stage while others want to move on to the Overcomer stage. It can also be easy to get stuck in identifying with the Thriver stage because it is more positive than the Victim stage. Individuals who identify themselves as Overcomers can deal with both the symptoms and the outcomes of the traumatic event. It must be emphasized that by adopting a self-identity and self-definition of an Overcomer they may lose the benefits of a Victim, but they gain self-respect, self-esteem and appreciation from their family, friends and community, and may no longer be considered weak and in need of compassion and support. An Overcomer acknowledges responsibility for the good and the bad in life, takes guidance and constructive criticism, and creates goals for him/herself and tries to achieve those goals. Overcomers are those who, like the Victims and the Survivors, have faced hardships and adversity and like the Victims/Survivors they could have given in to their circumstances and gained the Thriver stage, but instead they chose to use their past to propel them forward into a better future. They view their unfortunate experience as an opportunity and are generally satisfied with life and display a positive commitment to invest in the future endeavors. Becoming an Overcomer is not a skill that we are born with, but rather one that we can practice and develop over time. The Overcomer focuses on what can be accomplished, their strengths, blessings, and goals and they perceive how fortunate

2  From Victim to Survivor to Overcomer

27

they are to overcome and survive their mishap or ordeal. This way of thinking empowers and motivates the ‘Overcomer’ to move forward in life, and to continue to develop their ‘Overcomer’ self-identity. In general, the Overcomer experiences empowerment, compassion, resilience, and self-determination and recognizes himself or herself as a valuable individual who has moved beyond the trauma of being victimized. The example of the Canadian friend (Hana) mentioned earlier in the paper exhibited all the characteristics of an Overcomer of trauma and displays confidence, inspiration, and gratitude in his or her life.

From Victim to Overcomer Every Victim can become an Overcomer. However, some people feel quite content and happy living life as a Victim, a Survivor or a Thriver. They may experience great difficulty moving from Victim to Survivor, the Thriver stages to the Overcomer stage, and even become more comfortable staying in a stage which offers familiarity. There is no doubt that the self-identity and/or label of a Victim has some major benefits, that may serve as an initiative to keep this label and keep even the self-­ identity of a Victim. However, the price that a person must pay is enormous. The question now is what the way is, or what a person should do in order to leave the label and self-identity of a Victim, Survivor, or Thriver and to grow to that of an Overcomer. There are several steps and various descriptions of the path from Victim to Survivor, to Thriver to Overcomer. Some of these considerations are still in the description phase and some are theoretical based research. Research findings suggest that even at the time of the attack, or the victimization occurrence, a Victim can be understood as a Victim in an Overcomer’s mode. There are many Victims who are struggling mentally in the moment to find a way to resist total domination by her attacker (Walklate 2011). These findings contribute to the understanding and critics of Jordan’s (2013) idea that there is a linear progression from Victim to Overcomer. Jordan (2013) suggests that this is a multidimensional path that involves many factors both personal and general. Another important dimension that should be recognized is the tendency of some Victims whilst striving for recovery to deny the victimization impacts on them because of the pressure by family members or therapists to appear resilient. Regardless of the source of the pressure, it may be potentially harmful, as it is forcing them to hide their suffering, and their feelings of vulnerabilities (Walklate 2011). Regardless of the outcome of the victimization event, the type of the victimization, number of Victims, and number of Survivors, individuals may suffer from Survivor guilt. Although there is still debate in the literature if this is a symptom or an associated feature of the traumatic outcome (Brett and Orsoff 1985), it is thought to be an important obstacle in the path from Victim to Survivor to Thriver to Overcomer. People who have been victimized experience relief and gratitude that they have survived the victimization, however this feeling is accompanied with guilt

28

S. Ben-David

feeling, for not taking care, not being careful enough and sometimes even feeling guilty for being in the victimization scene (Lifton and Olson 1976). This guilty feeling increases their anxiety and the belief that life is unsafe. As an outcome they seek help and assistance from a Victim assistance organization and lean on their help for a long time. There are coping tools that a Victim can utilize in his/her journey from Victim to Overcomer. It is assumed that the use of diverse coping styles can explain the differences in the process of leaving the Victim label. Traditionally the literature emphasizes two basic types of coping modes: problem-focused, which addresses the problem, and emotion-focused, which mainly deals with the emotional and psychological outcomes of the stressful problem (Chesney et  al. 2006; Folkman 2013; Lazarus and Folkman 1984). However, research findings indicate that coping with victimization, especially with extreme incidents or threat of extreme danger, suggests that the coping strategies of Victims are more complicated, and that a combination of these coping styles are more effective (Cohen-Louck and Ben-David 2017). Presumably, the coping process for the Victims should be integrated, cognitive, dynamic, and ongoing, and meet the needs and resources of those Victims that use this coping style. On the other hand, the focus on the Survivor dimensions can be potentially harmful, making it difficult for the Victims to expose their vulnerabilities to family members as well as therapists of social agents in the face of pressure to appear resilient (Walklate 2011).

Conclusion and Suggestions The path from victimization to an Overcomer is a long and painful process. Sometimes this path can take a lifetime, and sometimes only a few months. This path is not a simple or automatic one, and there are several factors that enhance or hinder this process. These factors can be divided into three groups: factual factors, personal factors, and official/social factors. The factual factors include variables such as the nature of the victimization act, seriousness of the injuries and all other consequences of the victimization act. The personal factors include characteristics of the Victim  – such as age and gender, physical and health condition prior the attack, and psychological characteristics that can enhance or impair the rehabilitation process. The third, and very important factors, includes the social factors, social agencies – police, Victim’s assistance organization, the court and the compensation and rehabilitation procedures. Personal characteristics of the Victims vary and are a fact at the time of the victimization. These variables should be considered by the social agencies that are geared to take care of the case (police) and the rehabilitation and reintegration of the Victim. However, research indicates that there is a need for deep and serious analysis of the effects of the police and Victims’ assistance programs and agencies, social welfare organizations on the recovery of the Victims because paradoxically many of them tend to revictimize, and label the Victim, thus reinforcing the Victim’s label and the building of career Victims (Jordan 2013).

2  From Victim to Survivor to Overcomer

29

It is important to acknowledge that although there is a change both in public opinion and official procedures of both professionals in the criminal justice system and Victims’ assistance organizations, still paradoxically the criminals receive more of the public interest, and there are more treatment programs for the criminals, their families, wives and children than for the Victims and their relatives. Moreover, programs for criminals are centered mostly on rehabilitation, and acquiring new coping techniques, that will enhance their potential of reintegration in the community. In addition, most Victims’ programs are preoccupied with providing compensation or restitution to the Victims (Whiston 1981). This difference in both the philosophy and objectives of these two-social organizations can symbolize, on one hand, the fear of being victimized, and, therefore, concentrate on the prevention of crime, and on the other hand, the need for ‘good doing’ to relieve the guilt feelings, for the failure to prevent crimes and protect society members from criminal attacks. To sum up, the aims of this paper were to highlight four stages of identity following victimization (Victim, Survivor, Thriver and Overcomer) and to call for a shift both in public attention and the goals of Victim assistance programs for achieving the public peace of mind by providing compensation or restitution for the Victims instead of acknowledgment that Survivors need rehabilitation more than compensation. This change in both public attention and programs will facilitate the Victim’s path from a Victim to an Overcomer.

References Ben-David, S. (2000). Needed: Victim’s victimology. In P. C. Friday & G. F. Kirchhoff (Eds.), Victimology at the transition from the 20th to the 21th century (pp. 55–72). Monchengladbach: Shaker Verlag & WSVP. Brett, E., & Orsoff, R. (1985). Imagery and posttraumatic stress disorder: An overview. American Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 417–424. Chesney, M. A., Neilands, T. B., Chambers, D. B., Taylor, J. M., & Folkman, S. (2006). A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. British Journal of Health Psychology, 11(3), 421–437. Cohen-Louck, K., & Ben-David, S. (2017). Coping with terrorism: Coping types and effectiveness. International Journal of Stress Management, 24(1), 1–17. Dillenburger, K., Fargas, M., & Akhonzada, R. (2006). Victims or survivors? Debate about victimhood in Northern Ireland. The International Journal of the Humanities, 3, 222–231. Dillmann, S.M. (2011). From victim to survivor to thriver. Retrieved on 30.10.2016 from: http:// www.goodtherapy.org/blog/victim-survivor-thriver-trauma-stages/ Dussich, J. P. J. (1981). Evolving services for crime victims. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Perspectives on crime victims (pp. 27–32). London: The C. V. Mosby Company. Dussich, J. P. J. & Jacobsen, H. F. (1981). The theory of social coping. Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony, Hanover, (manuscript). Folkman, S. (2013). Stress: Appraisal and coping. In M.  D. Gellman & J.  R. Turner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of behavioral medicine (pp. 1913–1915). New York: Springer. Friday, P. C. (1980). International review of youth crime and delinquency. In G. Newman (Ed.), Deviance and crime: International perspectives (pp. 100–129). Beverly Hills: Sags. Glazer, N. (1975). Reform work, not welfare. The Public Interest, 40, 5–32.

30

S. Ben-David

Jordan, J. (2013). From victim to survivor – And from survivor to victim: Reconceptualising the survivor journey. Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand, December, 5(2), 48–56. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Leisenring, A. (2006). Confronting “victim” discourses: The identity work of battered women. Symbolic Interaction, 29(3), 330–307. Levens, H. (1976). Organization affiliation and powerlessness. In A. H. Katz & E. Bender (Eds.), The strength in US. new viewpoint (pp. 91–101). New York: A Division of Franklin Watt. Lifton, R. J., & Olson, E. (1976). The human meaning of total disaster: The Buffalo Creek disaster. Psychiatry, 39, 1–18. Lyon, O. W. (1978). The dynamics of welfare dependency. In S. M. Lester (Ed.), Welfare, the elusive consensus (pp. 113–152). New York: Praeger Publishers. Mangelsdorf, J., & Eid, M. (2015). What makes a thriver? Unifying the concept of posttraumatic and postecstatic growth. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(813), 1–17. Roddick, M.L. (2015). Stages of trauma recovery: What it means to be a ‘Survivor’ good therapy. Retrieved from https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/ stages-of-trauma-recovery-what-it-means-to-be-a-survivor-0803155 Salazar, C. F., & Casto, C. (2008). Moving from Victim to Survivor of cultural violence: A conceptual model. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 47(1), 82–98. Seligman, M. P. (1973). Fall into helplessness. Psychology Today, 7, 43–48. Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2010). The effects of adolescent victimization on self-­ concept and depressive symptoms. Child Maltreatment, 15(1), 76–90. Walklate, S. (2011). Reframing criminal victimization: Finding a place for vulnerability and resilience. Theoretical Criminology, 15, 179–194. Whiston, S. K. (1981). Counseling sexual assault victims: A loss theory. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 59(6), 363–366. Young-Rifai, M.A. (1979). Victimology: A theoretical framework. Applied System Research and Development, Inc., Wilsonville, OR 97070, http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract. aspx?ID=62257

Chapter 3

The Relevance of Error Margins in the Trend Towards Algorithmic Victimology: Some Remarks on the Futures of Theory and Risk Assessment From the Spanish Periphery Gema Varona

If a homicide was prevented, it did not matter if the intervention was with a prospective perpetrator or prospective victim (Berk 2013, p. 7).

It is a great responsibility to contribute to honouring Professor Marc S. Groenhuijsen. This brief paragraph intends to express gratitude for his unique work in victimology. After reading some of his many influential works, listening to him in meetings and symposiums of the World Society of Victimology, sharing some workshops in the International Institute for the Sociology of Law in the Basque Country, and meeting him last time in Intervict in Tilburg, in 2016, I would like to thank him for promoting victimology in Europe worldwide. In the victimology course I teach at the University of the Basque Country, my young students very much appreciate the required readings authored by him, and that we later discuss in class. In a sense, the magic of Professor Groenhuijsen’s presence in Spanish universities is recreated, and his influence on future individual careers and engagements, no matter the temporal or geographical distance, continues.

Introduction As it is in other countries, victimology is a minor discipline in Spain’s academia. Antonio Beristain (2000), a close friend of the Belgian Professor Tony Peters, is with no doubt the most well-known international author and pioneer in victimological studies in Spain and many Latin American countries. After his death in 2009, his G. Varona (*) Basque Institute of Criminology (University of Basque Country), Donostia/San Sebastian, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 J. Joseph, S. Jergenson (eds.), An International Perspective on Contemporary Developments in Victimology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41622-5_3

31

32

G. Varona

works remain among the most quoted in this field. Evolving from criminal law, he advocated for a ‘victim justice’ and a ‘recreative justice,’ in the sense that justice should first aim at showing solidarity with the victims’ need for recovery and reparation. Although he used criminal justice statistics and social surveys as secondary data, his primary focus was on theory rather than empirical research. Later, current authors like Myriam Herrera (1996, 2014), Josep M. Tamarit (2013) and José Luis de la Cuesta (Varona et al. 2015), have contributed with significant works that incorporate theory and empirical findings. In any case, the academic background of these authors is also criminal law, so it is not surprising that younger researchers coming from psychology, classified now as a health science, have added a more quantitative vision of the discipline, particularly in developmental victimology—this is in line with comparative research in victimology worldwide (Pereda 2016). Before them, victimology from a general psychological standpoint had been promoted by Professor Enrique Echeburúa (Baca et al. 2006). Although victimology remains a minor discipline, its growing impact on Spain’s policies and universities can be observed. Starting in the eighties, court-based public services to support victims, periodic training for professionals in the criminal justice system and specific legislation have been developed. Every November, since 2010, there has been an international annual congress on victimology in San Sebastián, Spain, in honour of Professor Beristain. Victimology is studied as part of the criminology undergraduate studies at universities in Spain. Specialized postgraduate studies and master’s degrees are offered as well. There are prestigious scientific societies of victimology in Spain, with links to the World Society of Victimology, that have launched a joint endeavour to publish a Journal of Victimology, both in Spanish and in English. Some Spanish researchers belong to the European victimology group, within the European Society of Criminology, and publish their work in relevant international reviews and collections. Yet, Spain’s victimology can be considered peripheral in global terms (Hogg et al. 2017). Because writing from its many peripheries might bring new insights to victimology, this paper aims to offer some points to promote further debate. After this brief introduction on the contribution of Spanish authors to victimological knowledge and the acknowledgment of a growing impact of victimology in Spain, in the following sections some of its current trends and practices are discussed. First, the trend of algorithmic victimology in the context of today’s criminal justice, mainly in Western societies, will be identified and described, and the major changes that algorithmic victimology entails for theory and research will be considered. Finally, some conclusions will be drawn about the possibilities for establishing victimology as a legitimate branch of knowledge that is interdisciplinary, intersectoral and international.

3  The Relevance of Error Margins in the Trend Towards Algorithmic Victimology…

33

 lgorithmic Victimology as Predicting Technique in Today A Criminal Justice Systems: The End of Theory? In parallel with computational criminology (Berk 2013), computational victimology could be defined as a hybrid of computer science, applied mathematics and victimology. Its emergence responds in part to the movement towards converting criminology (and victimology) ‘into a more predictive and accurate science’ (Farrington et  al. 2015). An extreme reading of what computational victimology means would make us conclude that explanation in the form of statistical probabilities and correlation would no longer need a previous theory as long as we could observe almost the whole universe of processes we want to understand. However, another way of understanding computational victimology could be to stress computer science and mathematics as tools within victimological theories. For some, the search for an explanation of victimization and recovery and reparation processes, in their interrelated micro, meso and macro levels (Fattah 2000), cannot be done without a theoretical framework functioning as a guide, and not as dogma. The use of computer-intensive methods to assemble datasets and inform administrative activities (Berk 2013, p. 1), like predictive policing or risk assessment, are increasing. Even though many of these datasets are more focused on real or potential offenders, they are indirectly acting in the sphere of victim prevention and, sometimes, directly on victim evaluation. Risk assessment is not new. What is new is the way in which it is being done through algorithms, together with its expansion to victim assessment. Criminologists have long been looking for risk or criminogenic factors that would signal if crimes are more likely to be committed. Special concern can be observed with geographical levels (the entire city, its boroughs and its neighbourhoods) (van Steden et al. 2013). On their side, victimologists have written on victimogenic factors or victim risk (before the crime has occurred) (Ellenberger 1955), particularly in relation to lifestyles and spatial contexts, as well as on victimization patterns (Amir 1971). Victimologists have also studied protective factors against victimization (Dussich 1997; Banyard et al. 2017; Thompson and Ravlin 2017), or variables favouring recovery—the opposite of vulnerability (Dussich and Eichman 1976), once the crime has occurred. In general, this way of thinking has been mainly based in a causal model. Within computational victimology, machine learning or algorithmic victimology—with its different methods—can be defined as victimology relying on algorithmic procedures rather than causal models (Berk 2013). Berk points out ‘the need for a dramatic attitude adjustment among criminologists (and victimologists): Empirical research … is thoroughly dominated by a culture of causal modeling in which the intent is to explain in detail the mechanisms by which nature generated the values of a response variable as a particular function of designated predictors and stochastic disturbances. Machine learning comes from a different culture characterized by an ‘algorithmic’ perspective (2013, p. 1).

34

G. Varona

Within this algorithmic perspective, it is acknowledged that nature produces data in a way that is complex and—in many cases—unknowable. However, some independent and dependent variables can be observed, and thus the challenge is to find an algorithm, working as a function of the independent variable, that can be a good predictor of dependent variables. Here victimological data exploration aims at finding patterns usually overlooked by using hand-tailored forecasting procedures based on estimations that Berk (2013, p. 2) considers to be ‘impressive’, particularly when employing massive datasets from census (big data) and not just sampling. Algorithmic victimology may or may not use big data. Big data is defined by its variety, great volume, velocity of adding and processing information, usually in real time (Chan and Bennett 2016, p.  24). This managing of big data is presented as progress in relation to earlier causal models in the social sciences because they are ‘laced with far too many untestable assumptions of convenience’, whereas ‘machine learning can rest on a rather different model that demands far less of nature and of subject matter knowledge’ (Berk 2013, p. 3). In any case, the commonly used joint probability distribution model is not infallible either. Its final value would depend on the balance between the costs of false positives (i.e., individuals incorrectly forecasted to be perpetrators or victims) and the costs of false negatives (i.e., individuals incorrectly forecasted to neither be perpetrators nor victims). Considering that, Berk concludes: when subject-matter theory is well-developed and the training data set contains the key predictors, conventional regression methods can forecast well. When existing theory is weak or available data are incomplete, conventional regression will likely perform poorly, but tree-based forecasting methods can shine (2013, p. 12).

Beyond the limits linked to the given data, algorithmic victimology has other limitations. Concurrence or coincidence in correlation is not causation or explanation, and mathematical methods address only one form of probability: that which arises from chance and not from causes. Moreover, exclusively mathematical approaches tend to overlook rare events and cannot establish to what extent a piece of research - relevant to the mathematical model - is relevant to a concrete person (victim and/or offender) under treatment or observation (Buchanan 1999). However, the claim for independence from theory, an advantage pointed out by algorithm advocates, is repeated. According to Anderson, (2008, as cited by Chan and Bennett 2016, p. 22), with massive data, the traditional model of social science is becoming obsolete: We can stop looking for models. We can analyze the data without hypotheses about what it might show. We can throw the numbers into the biggest computing clusters the world has ever seen and let statistical algorithms find patterns where science cannot.

All this reminds us of the metaphor from the Russian–British philosopher Isaiah Berlin, in his famous and often-too-seriously-taken article titled The Hedgehog and the Fox. This theme of this article has been interpreted by some authors as the deep specialists (viewing the world through a single defining idea or theory) versus the generalists (drawing on multiple experiences) (Tetlock 2005). However, who is who in this specific debate on algorithmic victimology is not clear at all, particularly if

3  The Relevance of Error Margins in the Trend Towards Algorithmic Victimology…

35

we put together a debate on individual evaluation of danger and risk assessment. For example, within massive datasets, it might be possible to identify specific individuals but, at the same time, general patterns of classification are being applied. The inductive or data-driven epistemology assumes that numbers and statistics speak for themselves. Chan and Bennett (2016, p. 23) wonder: Who defines what is supposed to be measured or codified? What do we do with those concepts or processes that still cannot be measured or codified? To what extent is a census representative, particularly of minority populations? Who is going to interpret patterns and how will they be interpreted? Finally, Chan and Bennett (2016, p. 24) point out the possibilities of analyzing algorithmic social science as a part of the contemporary culture and its mythology, with: the widespread belief that large data sets offer a higher form of intelligence and knowledge that can generate insights that were previously impossible, with the aura of truth, objectivity and accuracy.

 he Contribution of Victimological Theories to Knowledge T and Explanation As described above, algorithmic victimology is more a technique of research than an explanatory theory. After advocating for theory in victimology, and before stressing its contribution to the social sciences, we should recognize its own limitations. Victimology is primarily based on empirical research with a low empirical test (Bruinsma 2016, p. 666), and many problems remain in relation to the idea of causation and its universal validity for all countries and for all victimizations. Notwithstanding the autonomy of victimological theories, many relate to general criminological ones. Bruinsma (2016, p. 664), on criminological theories, says that despite the increasing number of theories and their causal model, the main groups have a ‘probabilistic nature and can be labeled as propensity theories, not as behavioural or action theories’, only rational choice theories would be close to these. Some authors point out their incapacity to adequately explain or predict (criminal/ victim) behaviour. Moreover, many times the theory ‘is restricted to a number of simple (correlational) hypotheses between independent variables, with the dependent variable neglecting the mutual causal relationships among the independent variables’. On top of that, they have been developed in specific populations and contexts that cannot be generalized (Bruinsma 2016, p. 665). More than just the study of the causes of victimization, victimology can also be conceived as concerned with the victimhood, victimization, recovery and reparation processes. Yet traditionally, more efforts have been made towards the measurement of victimization (Zaykowski and Campagna 2014), rather than developing specific or autonomous theories about the way society and the criminal justice system responds to victims. Transcending current criminology, perhaps the task of the discipline should not be ‘to give the right answers’ to important questions about why

36

G. Varona

victimization occurs (Bruinsma 2016, p. 671), but to question the concept of victimization itself and, in some contexts, see it as one independent variable among many others within cultural and social processes beyond crime. To speak about the limits and contribution of theory in general, and victimological theories in particular, now that, as mentioned before, they are being under stress by some interpretations of algorithmic sciences, we can recall that every theory in this field is constructed to answer, in a direct or indirect way, the following five questions (Einstadter and Henry 1995): 1. On human nature and behaviour: are humans free, social, aggressive, vulnerable, resilient …? Are human beings different among them? 2. On social order and society: Does cooperation or conflict rule society? Who forms society and what makes members of society coexist without violence? How does society change? 3. On law, crime, victims and offenders: Does penal law express integration or lack of it? Is criminal law interdependent on other normative systems? Is it a dynamic system? What is crime? Are there typologies of offenders and victims? 4. On causal logic: Are there motives for crime? Can crime be freely chosen or does determinism prevail? Is it a biological, psychological or external determinism? Is there a propensity to become a victim? Is causality linear, multiple, interactive or dialectic? Can the conditions favouring or inhibiting criminality and victimization be measured and controlled? 5. On the criminal justice system: Which is the institutional and procedural framework responding to victimization? Is there a philosophy behind the system operation? What are the techniques of crime and victimization control? How does the administration apparatus work? Beyond psychopathological and biological perspectives, according to Zaykowski and Campagna (2014), five main categories of victimological theories can be described: victim precipitation, exposure/opportunity, learning/culture, control and critical. Every one of them answers the questions posed above differently. Dating from the origin of positive victimology at the beginning of the twentieth century, victim precipitation theories look for explanations of what actions or characteristics of victims increase the risk for harm. Here the victim’s legal culpability, engagement in criminal lifestyles, conflict and careless behaviour are examined and victims are classified as innocent, partially responsible, and guilty victims who might become offenders in an overlapping process of diverse directions. Exposure and opportunity theories explain victimization by examining the context of spatial and social risk, constructing the idea of ‘vulnerable targets’ for a ‘motivated offender’ and a ‘lack of a capable guardian’. These theories talk about lifestyle exposure, routine activities, structural choice and situational prevention (Fattah 2000). Social learning and cultural theories consider that victimization and/or offending is learned or transmitted via norms and values present in family, peer groups, society and the media. Victims and offenders ‘learn that violence/crime is normal or appropriate to use in particular circumstances’ (Zaykowski and Campagna 2014).

3  The Relevance of Error Margins in the Trend Towards Algorithmic Victimology…

37

Control perspectives examine victimization and/or offending through weak internal or external controls. In this sense, low self-control leads to risky lifestyles and enhances risk for victimization (Schreck et al. 2006). Finally, critical theories focus on the collective dimension of victimization, questioning the concept of victim in society and the lack of visibility for different forms of victimization. Social marginalization, inequality and abuse of power might be good predictors of victimization. The standpoint of critical victimology (Mawby and Walklate 1994; Walklate 2015) allows interrogation about a narrow logic-­ mathematical vision on human beings in different contexts. That kind of vision, presented as purely scientific, is political for making certain injustices invisible or unavoidable. Within those aforementioned theories, where does algorithmic victimology fit? If we understand it better as a technique, we can conclude that the exposure/opportunity and self-control theories might construct its underlying assumptions. Moreover, within the context of actuarial justice and managerialism, the increasing developments in the use of algorithms might by partly influenced by the interests of intelligence agencies and corporations, whose goals are usually quite divergent from university theoretical endeavours. Beyond the debate on the digital Panopticon, terrorism, and the social control of citizens as mere customers, corporations also take a role in the field of compliance programs. Taking businesses as potential victims of economic crime, the commercialization of software aims to ‘identify and manage the penal risks of an organization’, helping, among other things, to prevent crime by the company staff and, if so, avoiding or minimizing the corporation penal responsibility when provided by law. This last observation is not intended to support the clash between theory and action, or quantitative and qualitative, but to point out the need for mutual understanding to develop comprehensive victimological theories and coherent techniques of research. To understand possibilities and limits in mixed methodologies, the need for a better basic and academic education in quantitative methods must go hand in hand with a better basic and academic education in the qualitative approaches in the humanities and social sciences. As we have argued, most mathematical language referring to social science concepts is embedded in social assumptions and culture. Under the aura of hard science, risks of ideological uses persist. It is not a question of losing our monopoly as experts in social research, in favour of computer analysts or mathematicians, but of working together with open and humble minds so that better decisions can be made on issues very much related to the human rights of real people. Conflicting rights will always entail risks and values. Policy makers and criminal justice stakeholders must balance interests when they draft and implement protective measures against risks (Kahler et al. 2010). Again, those interests comprise cultural values and that measurement cannot be uniform in all societies.

38

G. Varona

 he Case of Gender-Based Violence in Spain and the Legal T Use of the Term ‘Vulnerability’ Vulnerability Theory and Risk In the case of risk assessment, the concern for the treatment of offenders has been translated into the treatment of victims; thus, there is now a need to predict and measure victimization risks and vulnerabilities. However, there are many assumptions about the way risks and vulnerabilities are being defined in relation to victimization and recovery. Within vulnerability theory we can distinguish between a psychological perspective, focused more on trauma and resilience, and a juridical and sociological one (from the standpoint of new legal realism): Vulnerability theory understands human beings as embodied creatures who are inexorably embedded in social relationships and institutions. By rejecting the limited subjectivity constructed in the liberal imagination, we acknowledge the lived complexity of the ‘vulnerable legal subject’—a political vision of how the human condition is profoundly shaped by an inherent and constant state of vulnerability across the life-course from birth until death. Incorporating the inevitability of change into the political project of conceiving the legal subject creates a complex subjectivity to guide the way we define individual and state responsibilities (Fineman 2015, p. 1).

In this sense, vulnerability theory seeks to understand the dynamic and socially embedded character of the legal subjects regulated by law, and it could be somehow related to the efforts of the United Nations to work with an Economic Vulnerability Index, making use of algorithms, as a measure of structural vulnerability to economic and environmental shocks. This is an example of how algorithms might be used with a more contextualized vision that aims to connect micro, meso and macro realities. If restricted to a narrow psychological level, the term vulnerability includes a problematization of the individual victim with a certain paternalistic perspective that is difficult to avoid (Walklate 2011). In a broader scope, vulnerability is a consequence of a violation of rights and social injustice. Thus, there is a social and moral accountability to be recognised, enabling us to think about dialectic causes and social prevention beyond individual measures of protection and psychological help. Vulnerability theory helps us to understand this term in a much more complex manner and is linked to the idea of the vulnerable and precarious character of all human beings, a key to understanding solidarity (Brown et al. 2017). However, the term ‘vulnerable victims’ is expanding in a narrow psychological sense, without including its socio, legal and philosophical implications. Moreover, present in international and national norms and documents (Groenhuijsen 2014), the term vulnerability might create a certain battle for recognition. Now it is not enough to fight to be recognized as victim, but the category of vulnerable victim might be more desirable to be granted certain rights and social attention. In the case of minors and other groups, their vulnerability is usually recognised per se or intrinsically. In other cases, it is necessary to identify victim (and witness)

3  The Relevance of Error Margins in the Trend Towards Algorithmic Victimology…

39

vulnerability in criminal case files (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary 2015) as elderly, physically disabled, suffering from mental health issues, learning disabled, those fearing intimidation or a mix of these. This identification is said to not only be needed to guarantee human treatment by police, prosecutors or judges, among other criminal justice stakeholders but also to evaluate victim risk and decide on protection and support measures (Storey and Strand 2017). Here is where algorithmic victimology is starting to play a certain role.

The EU Legal Use of the Term ‘Vulnerability’ The Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishes minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (Official Journal of the European Union 2012) states in its Article 1: Member States shall ensure that victims are recognised and treated in a respectful, sensitive, tailored, professional and non-discriminatory manner, in all contacts with victim support or restorative justice services or a competent authority, operating within the context of criminal proceedings.

In relation to the concept of vulnerability, according to the Preamble of the Directive: Persons who are particularly vulnerable or who find themselves in situations that expose them to a particularly high risk of harm, such as persons subjected to repeat violence in close relationships, victims of gender-based violence, or persons who fall victim to other types of crime in a Member State of which they are not nationals or residents, should be provided with specialist support and legal protection. Specialist support services should be based on an integrated and targeted approach which should, in particular, take into account the specific needs of victims, the severity of the harm suffered as a result of a criminal offence, as well as the relationship between victims, offenders, children and their wider social environment (38). Victims who have been identified as vulnerable to secondary and repeat victimisation, to intimidation and to retaliation should be offered appropriate measures to protect them during criminal proceedings. The exact nature of such measures should be determined through the individual assessment, taking into account the wish of the victim. The extent of any such measure should be determined without prejudice to the rights of the defence and in accordance with rules of judicial discretion. The victims’ concerns and fears in relation to proceedings should be a key factor in determining whether they need any particular measure (58).

Following the Directive, vulnerability may be the result of socio-demographic conditions (minors are always vulnerable victims; elderly and foreign people might be as well), physical or mental health conditions, the relationship between victim and offender, the kind of crime (terrorism, human trafficking, gender-based and domestic violence, sexual, hate crime or other significant abuse of power—economic crimes are not mentioned) or even where victims live if high rates of crime exist. Vulnerability is related to revictimization (of a similar crime or by the same

40

G. Varona

offender) and/or secondary victimization (by the social or criminal justice agents in contact with the victim).

 onclusion: Managing Victimization Uncertainties through C Contextualized Probabilistic Systems Quantitative research cannot be neglected in current victimology, not even by green victimology (Lynch et al. 2017) or critical victimology. It is important to stress the need for a myriad of perspectives and collaboration to face the limits of algorithmic quantitative research. These pages have tried to show the relevance of using the metaphors of margins and peripheries to discover the hidden and constantly changing dimensions of victimization processes. In the title of this paper we have employed the term ‘margin of error’ as equivalent to observational error in reporting measured quantities. If algorithmic victimology is defined as a victimology relying on algorithms as an instrument for knowledge, there is nothing good or bad about this. The problem is to respond to the questions of with what purpose, as well as who is using algorithms and how are they using them in the science of victimology understood in a broad sense. Some authors contend that the Latin word ‘risk’ comes from a Greek navigation term (rhizikon) as metaphor for ‘difficult to avoid in the sea’ (Kahler et al. 2010). This idea reminds us of the statement from the French philosopher and sociologist Edgar Morin (2000), who—in relation to knowledge, advises us to ‘navigate on a sea of uncertainties, sailing in and around islands of certainty’. Conscious of the limits of victimological knowledge, we can aim to improve it. Adapting Morin’s words to victimology, victim experiences entail cases without definition, cases with false definitions or categorizations and, especially, cases with the absence of a general and closed framework of analysis. Algorithms should be taken as one island among others in the immense sea of the consciously or unconsciously unknown. Despite the announcement of the end of (victimological) theory and the unstoppable advent of algorithms, and despite the forecasting on a coming change in social sciences and opportunities of algorithmic victimology, there is not much published research using computer modelling/algorithms as a predictive tool for risk analysis or victim prevention. In addition, in the case of predictive policing, traditional concepts and theories like crime prevention, problem-oriented policing and repeat victimization, clearly inform research (Chan and Bennett 2016, p. 27–28). It should also be considered that ex post evaluation of the effectiveness of a program for victims will always be relevant (Chan and Bennett 2016, pp. 34–35). Finally, the criminal justice system culture and practice might resist innovations in this field. The criminal justice system is usually reluctant to changes in professional and organizational cultures that imply different disciplines (Tileubergenov et al. 2016). The clash of authorities, not only among statistical scientists and social scientists

3  The Relevance of Error Margins in the Trend Towards Algorithmic Victimology…

41

but also among judicial, executive and legislative authorities (in their discretion— abuses or/and (mis)understanding—in valuing risk assessment and algorithms in general) deserves further victimological analysis as well (Shepherd and Sullivan 2017). Where is victimology placed within the context of hard versus soft science and the trend in managerialism in victim policy? Is it the same classical discussion about the contrast between subjective and objective, qualitative and quantitative, theory and pattern-identification, together with causation and correlation, individual and personalized treatment, and machine prognosis? When facing new technologies and methods which question theory and practice, have not we learnt about the need for non-territorial disciplines? We keep penalizing approaches that are interdisciplinary (Bal 2002), and dataset experts seem not to have the interest or the time to listen to the needs of some victims and to the social workers or psychologists working with them. Finally, international victimology is at risk of becoming more and more a uniform discipline where other languages beyond English are not allowed. In this globalized and technological world, we live in, we need open places for discussion/ debate, where diversity and minority opinions are welcome. Balance and hybrids of theory, methodology and research might correspond better to some of the actual needs of victims, particularly those least present in victim policy. If Philippe Robert (1999) tells us that the efficacy of the criminal justice systems depends on a combination of variables affecting different stakeholders with dynamic roles (suspects, condemned persons, victims, police agents, prosecutors, judges, penitentiary services, social services, policy makers, media, communities, etcetera), concentrating only or mainly in one of them (being suspects or victims) will always be a narrow, short-sighted practice. This paper has tried to demonstrate, at least in the case of Spain, that we need a combination of sights, actions, methods and instruments coming from different sectors, disciplines and professionals towards the complexity of the victimization, recovery and reparation processes. That combination, with its many limits, might provide more humane and scientific knowledge, rather than only trusting in algorithms. Being necessary, up until now, algorithms cannot reflect, or predict, the whole picture of the processes where victims, offenders, professionals and society are concerned. Algorithms cannot protect human rights (Sloan 2016). This includes the right to data protection and privacy of prospective victims and offenders, and members of society in general, in the making of those algorithms, particularly by private corporations and governmental intelligence agencies in relation to terrorism, probably the field with the current fastest expansion (Ezell et al. 2010; McCulloch and Pickering 2009; National Counter Terrorism Security Office 2017; Yun and Roth 2008). The combination of theories and imagination (Walklate 2015), in our thoughts and decisions, might bring a balance between too narrow and too broad perspectives (Tetlock 2005). When identifying reality and using victimological imagination, algorithms might find correlations but they might not help making absences visible in this discipline (Walklate 2016). In particular, we need more research on algorithms in relation to questions of privacy, ethics, opacity, differential access and bias (Chan and Bennett 2016, p. 24; Lepri et al. 2017; Robinson and Koepke 2016).

42

G. Varona

Finally, thinking about solutions is not only a question of taking the best of clinical, or individual assessment, and actuarial assessment in social science and professional practice within the criminal justice system. It touches the whole system of victimology as a social science. Mainstream victimology reflected in prestigious congresses and publications must think about its universal reach. Are we not falsely universalizing tools, concepts and theories (Wacquant 2011), particularly in the case of risk assessment, by mere transplants lacking of critical social and cultural contextualization? Should not victimologists at the periphery resist an increasing dependency on external funding aimed at short-term technical issues (Wacquant 2011), without questioning who holds the power in validation processes of those tools and without thinking on theoretical frameworks in a context of increasing inequality and penalty where victims’ interests are being politically used? How are we going to try to answer these and other important questions, investing ‘more time in thinking and in open discussions’, if many of us ‘run from one publication to another, trying to meet bureaucratic performance criteria set by managers of universities or research institutes in order to get tenure or to hold positions’ (Bruinsma 2016, p. 671)? It is not only about victimology, it is about every one of us. Acknowledgements  I benefited from the comments of my brother Pablo Varona, a busy and generous Physics Professor (UAM), in love with the possibilities of using algorithms in artificial intelligence.

References Amir, M. (1971). Patterns in forcible rape. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baca, E., Echeburúa, E., & Tamarit, J.  M. (2006). Manual de victimología. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch. Bal, M. (2002). Travelling concepts in the humanities: A rough guide. Toronto: The University of Toronto Press. Banyard, V., Hamby, S., & Grych, J. (2017). Health effects of adverse childhood events: Identifying promising protective factors at the intersection of mental and physical well-being. Child Abuse & Neglect, 65, 88–98. Beristain, A. (2000). Victimología: Nueve palabras clave. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch. Berk, R. (2013). Algorithmic criminology. Security Informatics, 2, 1–15. Brown, K., Ecclestone, K., & Emmel, N. (2017). The many faces of vulnerability. Social Policy and Society, 1–14. Bruinsma, G. (2016). Proliferation of crime causation theories in an era of fragmentation: Reflections on the current state of criminological theory. European Journal of Criminology, 13(6), 659–676. Buchanan, A. (1999). Risk and dangerousness. Psychological Medicine, 29(2), 465–473. Chan, J., & Bennett, M. L. (2016). Is big data challenging criminology? Theoretical Criminology, 20(1), 21–39. Dussich, J. (1997). Enfrentamiento social: un modelo teórico para la comprensión de la victimización y la mejoría, Cuadernos de criminología, 7, 111–123. Dussich, J. P., & Eichman, C. J. (1976). The elderly victim: Vulnerability to the criminal act. In J. Goldsmith & S. Goldsmith (Eds.), Crime and the elderly. Lexington: Lexington Books.

3  The Relevance of Error Margins in the Trend Towards Algorithmic Victimology…

43

Einstadter, W. J., & Henry, J. (1995). Criminological theory: An analysis of its underlying assumptions. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Ellenberger, T. (1955). Psychological relationships between the criminal and his victim. Archives of Criminal Psychology, 2, 257–290. Ezell, B. C., Bennett, S. P., Von Winterfeldt, D., Sokolowski, J., & Collins, A. J. (2010). Probabilistic risk analysis and terrorism risk. Risk Analysis, 30(4), 575–589. Farrington, D.  P., MacLeod, J.  F., & Piquero, A.  R. (2015). Mathematical models of criminal careers: Deriving and testing quantitative predictions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53(3), 336–355. Fattah, E. A. (2000). Victimology: Past, present and future. Criminologie, 33, 17–46. Fineman, M. A. (2015). Vulnerability and law. New legal realism conversations. Retrieved from https://newlegalrealism.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/fineman-on-vulnerability-and-law/ Groenhuijsen, M. (2014). The development of international policy in relation to victims of crime. International Review of Victimology, 20(1), 36. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. (2015). Witness for the prosecution: Identifying victim and witness vulnerability in criminal case files. London: HMIC. Herrera, M. (1996). La hora de la víctima: Compendio de victimología. Madrid: Edersa. Herrera, M. (2014). ¿Quién teme a la victimidad? El debate identitario en Victimología. Revista de Derecho Penal y Criminología, (12), 343. Hogg, R., Scott, J., & Sozzo, M. (2017). Southern criminology: Guest editors’ introduction. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 6(1), 1–7. Kahler, M., Lachish, S. & Tourais, C. (comps.). (2010). A comparative analysis of risk assessment. Cornell University. Retrieved from https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/ ComparativeAnalysisonRisk.html Lepri, B., Staiano, J., Sangokoya, D., Letouzé, E., & Oliver, N. (2017). The tyranny of data? The bright and dark sides of data-driven decision-making for social good. In Transparent data mining for big and small data (pp. 3–24). New York: Springer International Publishing. Lynch, M. J., Barrett, K. L., Stretesky, P. B., & Long, M. A. (2017). The neglect of quantitative research in green criminology and its consequences. Critical Criminology, 25(2), 183–198. Mawby, R., & Walklate, S. (1994). Critical victimology: International perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage. McCulloch, J., & Pickering, S. (2009). Pre-crime and counter-terrorism. Imagining future crime in the ‘war on terror’. The British Journal of Criminology, 49(5), 628–645. Morin, E. (2000). Les sept savoirs nécessaires à l’éducation du futur. Paris: Seuil. National Counter Terrorism Security Office. (2017). Crowded places guidance. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/619411/170614_crowded-places-guidance_v1.pdf. Official Journal of the European Union. (2012). Directive 2012/29/EU of the European parliament and of the council of 25 October 2012. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32012L0029&from=EN Pereda, N. (2016). ¿Uno de cada cinco?: Victimización sexual infantil en España. Papeles del psicólogo, 37(2). Robert, P. (1999). ¿Cómo concebir y construir el estudio del crimen? In L. Arroyo et al. (Eds.), Estudios de Criminología II (pp. 329–342). Cuenca: Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. Robinson, D. & Koepke, L. (2016). Stuck in a pattern: Early evidence on “predictive policing” and civil rights. Retrieved from https://www.teamupturn.com/reports/2016/stuck-in-a-pattern Schreck, C. J., Stewart, E. A., & Fisher, B. S. (2006). Self-control, victimization, and their influence on risky lifestyles: A longitudinal analysis using panel data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22(4), 319–340. Shepherd, S. M., & Sullivan, D. (2017). Covert and implicit influences on the interpretation of violence risk instruments. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 24(2), 292–301. Sloan, G. 2016. An algorithm cannot protect constitutional rights. Retrieved from http://www.he Huffingtonpost.com.

44

G. Varona

Storey, J. E., & Strand, S. (2017). The influence of victim vulnerability and gender on police officers’ assessment of intimate partner violence risk. Journal of Family Violence, 32(1), 125–134. Tamarit, J. (2013). Paradojas y patologías en la construcción social, política y jurídica de la victimidad. InDret, 1. Retrieved from http://www.indret.com/pdf/940.pdf Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know? Philadelphia: Princeton University Press. Thompson, B., & Ravlin, E. (2017). Protective factors and risk factors: Shaping the emergence of dyadic resilience at work. Organizational Psychology Review, 7(2), 143–170. Tileubergenov, E. M., et al. (2016). Theoretical problems of implementing achievements of natural and technical sciences into the criminal judicial system. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 1(15), 132–139. van Steden, R., Boutellier, H., Scholte, R. D., & Heijnen, M. (2013). Beyond crime statistics: The construction and application of a criminogenity monitor in Amsterdam. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 1–16. Varona, G., de la Cuesta, J. L., Mayordomo, V. & Pérez, A. (2015). Victimología: Un acercamiento a través de sus conceptos fundamentales como herramientas de comprensión e intervención. Donostia/San Sebastián: UPV/EHU.  OCW.  Retrieved from http://www.ehu.eus/documents/1736829/2010409/Manual+de+Victimologi%CC%81a+2015.pdf Wacquant, L. (2011). From ‘public criminology’ to the reflexive sociology of criminological production and consumption: A review of public criminology? by Ian Loader and Richard Sparks (London: Routledge, 2010). The British Journal of Criminology, 51(2), 438–448. Walklate, S. (2011). Reframing criminal victimization: Finding a place for vulnerability and resilience. Theoretical Criminology, 15(2), 179–194. Walklate, S. (2015). Jock Young, left realism and critical victimology. Critical Criminology, 23(2), 179–190. Walklate, S. (2016). Whither criminology: Its global futures? Asian Journal of Criminology, 11(1), 47–59. Yun, M., & Roth, M. (2008). Terrorist hostage-taking and kidnapping: Using script theory to predict the fate of a hostage. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 31(8), 736–748. Zaykowski, H., & Campagna, L. (2014). Teaching theories of victimology. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(4), 452–467.

Chapter 4

A Victimological Exploration of the African Values of Ubuntu Robert Peacock

Introduction With reference to the early cautionary advice of Groenhuijsen (2001) on the importance of interpretation and meaning of culture in relation to the study-field of victimology and the administration of criminal justice, an increasing interest is since noticeable in the potential role culture could play in the management of disputes and victimization around the world together with its pivotal role in the promotion of sustainable peace in communities (Murithi 2009). Take South Africa as an example of a country that transitioned from an autocratic regime to a constitutional democracy as the result of African cultural values. This is not say that political and other factors did not also play an important role in the peaceful acceptance of the work of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission by the black community (whether as victims or perpetrators), but forgiveness and reconciliation were recognized and understood as part of a larger framework, a worldview based on the African cultural values of Ubuntu (Krog 2008; Peacock 2014). The discussion focusses on the potential of this African worldview or paradigm to imbue with new possibilities the socio-political, legal and psychosocial landscape associated with victimology and victim assistance; also elsewhere in the world. But it becomes firstly necessary to discuss what is meant by the concept of Ubuntu?

R. Peacock (*) Department of Criminology, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 J. Joseph, S. Jergenson (eds.), An International Perspective on Contemporary Developments in Victimology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41622-5_4

45

46

R. Peacock

Conceptualizing Ubuntu The concept of Ubuntu is found in diverse forms throughout Africa and more specifically in the languages of East, Central and Southern Africa. In terms of its definition, Emeritus Archbishop Desmond Tutu (1999) observes that Ubuntu is very difficult to render into a western language. Credited as a ‘way of life’, African philosophers such as Kaunda refers to it as ‘African humanism’, Ce’saire and Senghor as ‘negritude’, Nyere as ‘ujaama’ and Nkrumah as ‘concientism’ (Du Plooy 2014). When literally translated in Nguni languages, it means ‘humanness’ and is usually associated with the Zulu phrase ‘umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu’, which translates as ‘I am what I am because of who we are’ or ‘I am a person through other persons’. Ubuntu is the art of being human and is also described as ‘humble togetherness’ and the capacity in African culture to express compassion, reciprocity, dignity, harmony and humanity in the interest of building and maintaining communities characterized by justice and mutual caring. According to Tutu (1999), Ubuntu speaks to the very essence of being human, and means that one’s humanity is inextricably bound up in the sharing of a greater whole, but this is also diminished when others are tortured, oppressed, or treated as if they were less than we are. As victimization seeks to dehumanize, it is useful to apply a cultural lens to view the manner in which individuals and groups perceive themselves and their responsibilities in relation to others. An ongoing reflection and re-appraisal of the principles of communality, reciprocity and inclusivity of Ubuntu – which are also apparent in diverse forms in other cultures and traditions (Murithi 2009) – could also serve to re-emphasize the essential unity of all of humanity and promote values that are based on the sharing of resources as well as collaborative initiatives for addressing issues related to victims of crime and abuse of power.

Maat and Ubuntu In the pursuit of a greater understanding of culture and associated origins of victimological values, a brief historical journey is useful. Within the context of both the origin of European and African cultures, such a journey should start in Ancient times. Concerning the origin of European culture, Mesopotamian cultures are usually highlighted as the most significant early reference point particularly with reference to the ancient code of Ur- Nammu (circa 2050 BC) that prescribed in addition to the imposition of the death penalty, restitution to be paid by the offender to the victim (Kirchhoff 2010). On the other hand, the origin of an African Victimology can be traced to the much earlier key values of Netchar Maat, an ancient Egyptian deity (circa 2400 B.C.). According to the Coffin Texts Mutsiwa (2015), Maat was the revered Goddess of law, order, truth and wisdom and spiritual, and cultural beliefs in her were to maintain an ordered society through the application of humanitarian principles. The holy beliefs of Netchar Maat formed the foundational ideal

4  A Victimological Exploration of the African Values of Ubuntu

47

of ancient Egyptian philosophy and were associated with the seven virtues of Ubuntu as the key to perfection, namely truth, justice, propriety, harmony, balance, reciprocity and order (Broodryk 2002; Keevy 2008; Peacock 2019). These ancient virtues seek to address imbalances and the restoration of harmonious relationships through collective agreement and a basic respect and compassion for others, and stand in stark contrast with the individualistic-oriented western legal systems imported by the colonial rulers on the African continent. The African values of Ubuntu are of course evocative of restorative justice. According to Fattah (2006) proponents of restorative justice in the West often forget that pre-industrial Africa was the cradle of restorative justice with notable examples as well in the Indigenous communities of Australia and New Zealand and of North and South America (Weitekamp and Rosenblatt 2013). The epicenter of the principles of Maat and Ubuntu speaks to the universality of humankind that allows for a pluralistic humanitarian discourse. In other words, it stands for the affirmation of one’s humanity with others in its infinite variety of context and form. Within western phenomenological tradition, there has also been a similar emphasis on human interconnectedness, particularly influenced by the work of Heidegger and referred to as the Mitwelt, or “the social world shared with others.” The Mitwelt was deemed together with Umwelt (the environment) and along with Eigenwelt (personhood) as essential structures that determine human experience (Hanks 2008). Returning to harmony within ancient Egyptian society, it was embodied by Netchar Maat as the natural “order of all things, proportional measures and balance as the eternal truth of nature” (Mutsiwa 2015; Stakhov 2006: 490). With humanity directed by actions that lead to harmony, Ubuntu societies placed a high value on communal life, the collective well-being of community members and the maintaining of positive relationships within the community and society as the duty of all of the members. In the case of conflict, each member of the community is linked to each of the disputants, albeit to the transgressor or injured party (Murithi 2009). The purpose of justice in traditional Africa was to restore harmony as quickly as possible and involved the transgressor, the aggrieved and community. Although predominantly restorative, punishment was not unknown in traditional African law. But African law did not seek to create offences or criminals, but rather to restore and maintain equilibrium in communitarian societies. Other than the individual-oriented nature of Western concepts of law, the focus here was on interconnectedness - that is, group rights, duties, harmony but also shame. A guilty person and his/her group would be shamed, thereby forfeiting status in the community until the transgression was purged (Peacock 2019). The possibility of collective shame would serve as a deterrent for future victimization due to its impact on group solidarity and wholeness. Mazrui (in Keevy 2008) emphasizes the protection of the innocent as a key feature of traditional African law, followed by restitution to the aggrieved person/ group and the sense of shame the community accorded to infractions.

48

R. Peacock

Transformative Value of Ubuntu Concerning the transformative potential of Ubuntu values, Wole Soyinka in delivering his Nobel Prize speech, expressed astonishment at how some Africans seem to be able to forgive after much suffering and injustice. He says: “There is a deep lesson for the world in the black races’ capacity to forgive, one which I often think has much to do with the ethical precepts which spring from their world view and authentic religions, none which is ever totally eradicated by the accretions of foreign faiths and their implicit ethnocentrism” (Bell 2002: p.87). Although much had been written about the differences between forgiveness and reconciliation (forgiveness would usually refer to a personal ‘letting go’ of resentment associated with the past, whilst reconciliation refers to a change in both parties), within an Ubuntu framework of interconnectedness towards wholeness, the two concepts cannot be separated (Krog 2008). They are not only closely linked but mutually dependent. The deed of asking forgiveness and forgiveness itself needs to lead to recovery, reconciliation and a fuller personhood. Or in the words of Mrs. Ngewu whose son was killed by the South African apartheid state security forces and who testified during the second week of the TRC hearings: “This thing called reconciliation…if I am understanding it correctly…if it means the perpetrator becomes human again, this man who killed Christopher Piet, if it means he becomes human again, this man, so that I, so that all of us, get our humanity back …then I agree, then I support it all” (Krog 1998, p 109). This African mother understood that her son was killed because the killer had lost his humanity and that the loss of her son affected her own humanity, but she also understood that her forgiveness could change the killer, thereby opening up the possibility for her and him to become fully human again. This interconnectedness would be different from forgiveness in a Christian sense. According to forgiveness within a Christian context, it would read as: ‘I forgive you because Jesus has forgiven me’ or perhaps the more familiar: “Forgive our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”. It is believed the reward will be in heaven, and therefore, it is possible that one can forgive without reconciling, or to reconcile without forgiveness (living for example in peace with ‘sinful’ neighbors). With interconnected forgiveness on the other hand, the effort is towards full personhood on earth and the victim or injured party may forgive without even being asked, but importantly, the power or potential towards wholeness stays with the victim (Krog 2008). Despite this healing potential of forgiveness, it remains a somber concern that survivors at the TRC hearings and families of the victims began to experience a range of psychosocial problems after their testimony or in the words of one participant “going public makes you vulnerable”. According to the research of Bohler-­ Muller (2008), Nomoyi (2001) and Picker (2005) this would have been the case in particular in the absence of debriefing and any further follow up services whatsoever after testifying. For many participants in the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings, feelings of vulnerability did not refer only to the re-enactment of traumatic experiences, but translated also into fears surrounding

4  A Victimological Exploration of the African Values of Ubuntu

49

the loss of anonymity, the fear of retaliation and the fear of continued conflicts within their own communities (Peacock 2011). Importantly, the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1993) that prepared the way for the first democratic elections relied on this very willingness of victims to recognize the humanity of the perpetrators of gross human rights violations. Without their forgiveness there would have been no future for the new republic, and at the dawn of a new democratic order, the epilogue of the Interim Constitution emphasized that the divided society that emerged from apartheid bore a “legacy of hatred, fear, guilt and revenge” highlighting also the “need for understanding but not vengeance, a need for reparation but not for retaliation, a need for Ubuntu but not for victimization.” This was to be achieved through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act (Act No 34 of 1995) provided the TRC with a mandate to establish as complete as possible the causes, nature and extent of gross human rights violations committed under apartheid from March 1960 to December 1993, later amended to May 1994. This was to be accomplished through investigations and the holding of public hearings. The spirit of Ubuntu as also enshrined in the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act (No 34 of 1995, section 3(1)(c)) reads as follows: Establishing or making known the fate or whereabouts of victims and by restoring the human and civil dignity of such victims by granting them an opportunity to relate their own accounts of the violations of which they are the victims, and by recommending reparation measures in respect of them.

However, the process of amnesty granted to the perpetrators moved Ubuntu here from the center to the peripheral, particularly as far as individual-level reconciliation is concerned. With the state that took responsibility for reparations, all that was required from the amnesty applicants was to convince the Amnesty Committee that their acts were indeed associated with a political motive and that full disclosure was made, but it was not necessary to express remorse or ask for forgiveness in order to receive amnesty (TRC 1998). In the absence of a certain reciprocity in the balancing acts of reparations and amnesty granted by the Commission, with no shaming, or change on the part of the perpetrator after the act of forgiveness, it can be said that such negation of acknowledgement, remorse and inter-communal understanding certainly distracts from the healing potential of the spirit of Ubuntu, and therefore, also from achieving reconciliation at micro or inter-personal level (Peacock 2011). A lack of a formal apology remains notably one of the most controversial aspects of the South African amnesty process. With the state to take responsibility for reparations, the Committee on Reparations and Rehabilitation (CRR) of the TRC recommended that a comprehensive reparations program should be implemented by government. This would have included direct financial compensation to victims as well as symbolic, community-based and institutional forms of reparations. However, what could have been one of the most ambitious reparations programs in Sub-Saharan Africa, the state decided in the end on a much more diluted version, a one-off direct financial payment to victims and a

50

R. Peacock

community determined program (Colvin 2007). Adequate reparations would have done much publicly to affirm the moral worth of victims together with a much needed measure of financial relief but after many years, the South African Coalition for Transitional Justice (2011) still needs to hold the South African government accountable to its obligations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provide that every person who has been a victim of gross human rights violations is entitled to an effective remedy. But South Africa with its freedom struggle heroes lags behind countries such as Brazil, Peru, Guatemala, and Sierra Leone, which have established ongoing victim registration procedures. Other countries such as Argentina and Chile have repeatedly extended or reopened victim registration procedures. The South African Commission for Transitional Justice (2011) remains furthermore concerned that the many unnecessarily complicated administrative procedures contained in the regulations would render the proposed assistance largely inaccessible. The research participants in the qualitative study of Picker (2005) highlighted that the success of the TRC was largely on a national level in that revelations of the truth were essential for the common good rather than for individual benefits. They participated in the hearings to contribute their “part of the truth” to history. Rather than arriving at a false dichotomy of communalism versus individualism, or where the good of the majority takes precedence over the human rights of the individual, the challenge would be to strike a balance in the tension between the promotion of individual autonomy (individualism) simultaneous to a person’s inherent relationship (and may one add vulnerability) to the group (communalism). In my opinion, this would be a critical condition to render Ubuntu, or for that matter any other restorative practices into a workable concept rather than turning it into another tool of oppression or secondary victimization. In order to play a truly transformative role, communalism needs therefore to allow for the recognition of universal human rights together with its own attributes of interdependence, solidarity and collective responsibility. With Ubuntu as an emerging value in South African law, a pluralistic legal culture would present with the very potential to harmonize western values (or more individual oriented values) with indigenous or more communal values. This should be considered a functional imperative, particularly with reference to prolonged oppression that is usually associated with structural and institutional victimization, or in the case of South Africa, due to both colonization and apartheid. Since the ‘liberation’ or rather the cannibalization of the so-called ‘dark’ continent, that was prompted by the European scramble for Africa (and formalized by the Berlin Act of 1885), African law has been treated as inferior, hardly deserving recognition as ‘true’ law (Peacock 2019). Therefore, the usefulness and importance of Ubuntu in the contemporary South African legal context can be derived from its potential to advance African equity, to reflect the diverse values of the population, and to furthermore, strengthen the rule of law through the democratization of justice. The latter being especially critical since the white supremacist policy of racial domination and segregation was institutionalized through a plethora of law and enforced by the agent of the regime, namely criminal justice, thereby amplifying the lack of

4  A Victimological Exploration of the African Values of Ubuntu

51

legitimacy of a ‘white man’s law’ or that of western legal traditions (Peacock 2011, 2014). It would be misguided of course to view inequalities and victimization in crime control and justice to only be the preserve of colonial and apartheid South Africa, as research shows how social constructions, cultural bias and stereotypes of race, class, age, gender and sexual orientation continue to underscore criminal justice responses elsewhere in the world as well (Peacock 2019; Siegel 2004). Focusing also on the broader environment, the massive migrations in our globalized world and thus influx of foreign nationals and displaced people would render according to Groenhuijsen (2019) cultural neutrality in the administration of criminal justice a fallacy, with major implications for victimology due to the concomitant institutionalized victimization. Addressing the need for a more sensitive and transformed democratic legal culture in South Africa, Sherman and Strang (2009) are of the opinion that South Africa can indeed be viewed in some instances to be more advanced in applying the principles of reconciliation to criminal justice than what is the case in both the United Kingdom and Australia. Notions of participation and reconciliation can be considered reasons for the very success of South Africa’s constitutional revolution and while Ubuntu was one of the keys to political settlement, it has played and continues to play a much more important long term role in terms of transforming the entire criminal justice system. Ubuntu made its debut in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court in S v Makwanyane. In the words of Justice Langa: It’s a culture (Ubuntu), which places some emphasis on communality and on the interdependence of the members of the community. It recognizes a person’s status as a human being, entitled to unconditional respect, dignity, value and acceptance from the members of the community (that) such person happens to be part of. It entails the converse, however. The person has a corresponding duty to give the same respect, dignity, value and acceptance to each member of that community. More importantly, it regulates the exercise of rights by the emphasis it lays on sharing and co-responsibility and the mutual enjoyment of rights by all (S v Makwanyane 1995 3 SA 391 (CC) para 224).

An outstanding feature of Ubuntu is the value it places on life and human dignity, signifying that the life of another person is at least as valuable as one’s own and that respect for the dignity of every person is integral to this concept. This return here to Ubuntu addresses in this landmark case in specific the colonial and apartheid area’s lack of respect and utter disregard for the human life and dignity of groups other than those of European descent. With Ubuntu that is spearheading the development of a genuinely plural legal culture that needs to embody deep notions of inclusivity after the atrocities of apartheid, we have seen restoring harm becoming one of central aims of South Africa’s sentencing policy, the entire reconfiguration of the traditional court system. Ubuntu values are furthermore referred to in administrative law and maybe not as welcome yet in private law as in public law, but nevertheless, also evident here as emerging jurisprudence (Himonga et al. 2013; Thomas 2008). The new Child Justice Act (Act 75 of 2008) deserves special mentioning in its commitment to Ubuntu values in the child justice system through:

52

R. Peacock

a. the fostering of the child’s sense of dignity and worth b. reinforcing children’s respect for human rights and the fundamental freedoms of others by holding children accountable for their actions and safe-guarding the interests of victims and the community c. supporting reconciliation by means of a restorative justice response; and d. involving parents, families, victims and where appropriate, other members of the community affected by the crime in order to encourage the reintegration of children. A particular challenge would be to continue to invoke Ubuntu values in addressing socio- economic rights as an important dimension in the protracted struggle against inequality and the abuse of power. With Ubuntu as an emerging value in South African law, it would be useful to focus now also on the possible transformative value of Ubuntu and Humanism to Victimology and the social sciences. If we look at State violence and also a western view of mental health, we note that when State violence is perpetrated against a segment of society within its own boundaries, such premeditated and systematic extermination of a social class or ethnic group follows the methods of genocide rather than that of war between two nations. According to Maiello (2001) in-depth psychoanalytic studies have been undertaken not only on the families of the desaparecidos in Argentina and Chile, but also on the survivors of the holocaust, and on the survivors’ offspring in the second and third generations. The concept of the paranoid-schizoid is suggested in understanding not only an individual’s specific constellation of anxieties, defenses and object relations (splitting and denial of destructive fantasies and projection into a ‘not me’ object to protect the self) but also those processes of dehumanization (internalization of violence) that characterize State violence, including the apartheid ideology. Danieli (2009) is of the opinion that massive (collective) trauma causes such diverse and complex destruction that only a multidimensional, multidisciplinary integrative framework is adequate to describe it as an individual’s identity involves a complex interplay of multiple spheres or systems. Among these would be the biological and intrapsychic, the interpersonal (familial, social, communal), the ethnic, cultural and spiritual, the educational, material/economic, political, national, and international. Despite such complex destruction, Danieli (in Letchert et al. 2011) states victims respond to trauma in rather predictive ways and similar to the singular Paranoid-schizoid perspective, she narrows it down to Acute Stress Disorder (ASD) in the short run and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in the longer term (DSM-IV) (American Psychiatric Association 1980). Rather obviously, such reduction of identity remains ironically a contradiction of variability in human subjectivity regardless of the initial proffering of the manifold and different contexts. Kagee (2004) critiques the hegemony of the psychiatric model of traumatization in conceptualizing the needs of this population, and suggests an alternate perspective that is broader and more inclusive than a psychiatric paradigm. When interpreting distress cultural, social, political, and economic factors also impact on

4  A Victimological Exploration of the African Values of Ubuntu

53

individuals’ psychological state and sense of well-being. This would be the case particularly within the context of a transitional society such as South Africa that is characterized by structural violence and poverty. It is therefore possible that respondents may endorse PTSD symptoms offered by an evaluator in a clinical or research context, not because they necessarily exhibit them or find them salient, but because endorsement may indicate that they are deserving of expected reparations for their suffering. This premise does not seek to deny the suffering of survivors of human rights abuses in South Africa and elsewhere but rather, to question the extent to which their reactions and need for reparations warrant framing within a paradigm of psychopathology. Particularly, as a western medicalized view of humanity and trauma in Africa may serve chiefly as an internal reproduction of oppression, distracting with its labeling from broader societal imbalances and injustices. Rather than attempting to ‘psychologize away’ social inequality, racism and human rights abuses a broader framework of victimization and justice is required to capture the complexities of distress on the African continent and elsewhere, referring here also to the historical, cultural, social-political, and economic dimensions of victimization. Furthermore, with the manufacturing of disease and importation of alien mental health constructs into Africa, and subsequent pathologizing of normal reactions to victimization (distress, loss, and grief), an amplification of victimization is produced, thereby prolonging the suffering of the survivor impacting henceforth also negatively on his/her reference groups, community and society in general (Peacock 2019). It was Steve Biko (2007), the medical student and leader of the black consciousness movement in South Africa, who died in police custody when he was detained under the Terrorism Act, who said it is through the evolution of our culture that our identity can be fully discovered. This African relational understanding of a shared/ mutual identity is set in opposition to the western dictum ‘I think therefore I am’ and as an alternative, should rather read as ‘I am because I belong/participate’ (Du Plooy 2014. p85). However, humanistic paradigms in the social sciences, thinking here for instance of the well-known Carl Rogers who said we must suspend our own beliefs to understand the world of others and who called for the unconditional positive regard of others, or even Maslow who acknowledged human kinship as one of the most important characteristics of the self-actualized person, this all resonates with the notions of interconnectedness embedded in Ubuntu and with the potential in which this interconnectedness reasserts unity or wholeness within a community and between its members (Hanks 2008). If contemporary humanist endeavors could continue to successfully shift the emphasis on the self to one predicated on the self in relation to others that recognizes the integral importance of our interactions and interconnectedness, a more holistic and humanist victimological way can be unfolded with the Ubuntu paradigm as the next force to branch out and address the difficulties of a world far more diverse, complex and fundamentally wounded than that of Rogers, May and Maslow.

54

R. Peacock

Conclusion In conclusion, as a metanorm, Ubuntu has been criticized as too broad in scope but the demand for an exact definition could also impose a premature restriction on its value, function and continued differentiation. Ubuntu inspired research and jurisprudence can nevertheless provide important direction to the realization of democratic Ubuntu societies based on the accessible, inclusive and aspirational values of dignity, freedom and equality in order to advance the intense humaneness of a universal personhood in our attempts to address and transcend institutional, structural and interpersonal victimization. We need to honor our shared humanistic roots by examining and addressing the deeply engrained barriers that continue to reproduce the general neglect of collectivist orientations in and between societies, and subsequent erosion of the social embeddedness of individuals and communities. It seems therefore only logical to challenge orthodoxies in victimization, healing and justice, in order to give the world in the words of Steve Biko (2007, p. 167) the slayed freedom fighter, “a more humane face.”

References American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Washington DC: APA. Bell, R.H. (2002). Understanding African Philosophy. A cross-cultural approach to classical and contemporary issues in Africa. New York: Routledge. Biko, S. (2007). No fears expressed. Pretoria: Ultra Litho. Bohler-Muller, N. (2008). Against forgetting: Reconciliation and reparations after the truth and reconciliation commission. Stellenbosch Law Review, 3: 466–482. Broodryk, J. (2002). Ubuntu. Life lessons from Africa. Pretoria: Ubuntu School of Philosophy. Child Justice Act (Act 75 of 2008). Republic of South Africa. Pretoria: Government Printer. Colvin, C.J. (2007). Civil society and reconciliation in Southern Africa. Development in Practice, 17(3): 322–337. Danieli, Y. (2009). Massive trauma and the healing role of reparative justice. Journal of Traumatic stress, 22(5): 351–357. Du Plooy, B. (2014). Ubuntu and the recent phenomenon of the Charter for Compassion. South African Review of Sociology, 45(1): 83–100. Fattah, E.A. (2006). Is Punishment the Appropriate Response to Gross Human Rights Violations? Is a Non-punitive Justice System Feasible? Paper presented at the Politics of Restorative Justice in Post-Conflict South Africa and Beyond conference. Cape Town: 21–22 September. Groenhujsen, M.S. (2001). General report on rights and obligations towards victims. In A.  Gaudreault & I.  Waller (Eds). Beyond boundaries: Research and Action for the Third Millennium. Montreal: Association Quebecoise Plaidoyer Victames (pp: 229–238). Groenhuijsen, M.S. (2019). Recent past and immediate future challenges of victimology in a volatile environment. In R.  Peacock, (Ed). Victimology in Africa. Pretoria: Van Schaik (pp: 387–363). Hanks, T.  L. (2008). The ubuntu paradigm: psychology’s next force? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 48(1): 116–135. Himonga, C, Taylor, M & Pope, A. (2013). Reflections on Judicial views of Ubuntu. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 16(5): 369–427.

4  A Victimological Exploration of the African Values of Ubuntu

55

Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Act No 200 of 1993. Pretoria: Government Printer. Kagee, A. (2004). Present concerns of survivors of human rights violations in South Africa. Social Science and Medicine, 59: 625–635. Keevy, I. (2008). African philosophical values and constitutionalism: A feminist perspective on Ubuntu as a constitutional value. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of the Free State: Bloemfontein. Kirchhoff, G.F. (2010). History and a theoretical structure of victimology. In S.G.  Shohom, P.Knepper & M. Kett (Eds). International Handbook of Victimology. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis (pp: 95–123). Krog, A. (1998). Country of my skull. Johannesburg: Random House. Krog, A. (2008). ‘This thing called reconciliation…’ forgiveness as part of an interconnectednesstowards-wholeness. South African Journal of Philosophy, 27(4): 353–366. Letchert, R., Haveman, R., De Brouwer, A., & Pemberton, A. (2011). Victimological approaches to International Crimes. Cambridge: Intersentia. Maiello, S. (2001). On the transgenerational transmission of trauma and violence. Psycho-analytic Psychotherapy in South Africa, 9(2): 13–31. Murithi, T. (2009). An African perspective on peace education: Ubuntu lessons in reconciliation. International Review of Education, 55: 221–233. Mutsiwa, A. (2015) Precedent, Policy and Possibility; A Victimological Orientation towards the Protection of Traditional Knowledge in Africa. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Kwazulu-Natal: Durban. Nomoyi, C. (2001). Impact of the dynamics of the Reparations and Rehabilitation Committee of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on female victims. Acta Criminologica: Southern African Journal of Criminology. 14(1): 1–10. Peacock, R. (2011). The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Challenges in contributing to reconciliation. In R. Letchert, R. Haveman, A. de Brouwer & A. Pemberton. Victimological approaches to International Crimes. Cambridge: Intersentia (pp: 315–333). Peacock, R. (2014). Institutional and Structural victimization: Colonial and Apartheid South Africa. In D Roth & D Kauzlarich (Eds). Towards a Victimology of State Crime. Oxford: Routledge (pp: 212–224). Peacock, R. (2019). Victimology in Africa. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Picker, R. (2005). Victims’ perspectives about the Human Rights Violation hearings. Available from http://www.csvr.org.za/ Accessed on 12 February 2010. Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act (34 of 1995) of the Republic of South Africa, Pretoria: Government Printer. Sherman, L.W & Strang, H. (2009). Crime and Reconciliation: Experimental Criminology and the future of Restorative Justice. Acta Criminologica, 22(1): 1–12. Siegel, L. J. (2004). Criminology: Theories, patterns and typologies. Belmont: Wadsworth. South African Coalition for Transitional Justice. (2011). Comments on the Draft Regulations published by the Department of Justice dealing with Reparations for apartheid era victims. Available from http://www.csvr.org.za/. Accessed on 1 February 2020. South African Commission for Transitional Justice. (2011). Comments on the Draft Regulations published by the Department of Justice dealing with Reparations for apartheid era victims. Available from http://www.csvr.org.za/. Accessed on 3 March 2013. Stakhov A. (2006) The golden section, secrets of the Egyptian civilization and harmony mathematics. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 30: 490–505. Thomas, C.G. (2008). Ubuntu: The missing link in the rights discourse in post-apartheid transformation in South Africa. International Journal of African Renaissance Studies, 3(2): 39–63. Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (1998). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report. Cape Town: Juta. Tutu, D. M. (1999). No future without forgiveness. Park Town: Random House. Weitekamp, E.M. & Rosenblatt, F. (2013) Restorative Justice around the world and in cases of mass victimisation. In R. Peacock, (Ed). Victimology in South Africa. Pretoria: Van Schaik (pp: 129–144).

Chapter 5

New Perspectives on a General Methodology of Victim Support Janne Fengler

Victims’ Needs and Challenges for Professionals From a psychological perspective, victimization can be understood as taking place, insofar as: a. a person experiences harm, injury or suffering and/or b. perceives the harm as undeserved and himself respectively herself as a victim and/or c. attempts to get others to recognize what has happened and validate his or her victimization claim and/or d. receives this validation by others (Viano 1989). So independent of whether the harm, injury or suffering is validated by others or not, individuals can feel victimized and can experience so-called critical life events (Filipp and Klauer 1991), associated with severe stress and negative self-attributions. Victims’ needs can be differentiated in many regards, e.g. with respect to age, gender, ethnic background, socio-economic status, type of crime, or a result of primary vs. secondary effects (see e.g. Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs 2009; Choi et al. 2010; Gal 2011; Letourneau et al. 2013). Similarities, differences and particularities can be found in victims’ needs; for an overall perspective on the example of victims of crime, the results of a systematic review of 33 empirical studies conducted by Kuijpers and ten Boom (2012) is helpful. The authors report sets of victims’ needs such as primary, emotional, informational, practical, financial and regarding criminal proceedings. Whereas some of these needs are only specifically addressed by the police and the judiciary, most of them are addressed by J. Fengler (*) Department of Education, Institute of Early Childhood Education, Alanus University of Arts and Social Sciences, Faculty of Human Sciences and Social Sciences, Alfter/Bonn, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 J. Joseph, S. Jergenson (eds.), An International Perspective on Contemporary Developments in Victimology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41622-5_5

57

58

J. Fengler

so-called other persons and agencies – sometimes in addition to the above-­mentioned institutional role holders. This latter category “includes the victim’s own network of family, friends, etc. but also […] Victim Support and legal aid providers” (Kuijpers and ten Boom 2012, p. 159). The clusters of needs expressed by victims reveal an extensive range of requirements which are expected to be addressed by the above mentioned other persons and agencies, including social work professionals who are involved in victim support. According to Kuijpers and ten Boom (2012): a. primary needs include: immediate safety, preventing revictimization/protection of self and others; work/daily occupations, b. emotional needs include: (initial) response, care, support; further and/or specific assistance (e.g. counseling); characteristics of assistance (e.g. quickly available, low threshold); mentally coping with the crime, c. informational needs include: explanation (about systems etc.); information about mentally coping with the crime; information about prevention; characteristics of the information (timely and in victim’s own language), d. practical needs include: assistance in repairing property, assistance with domestic tasks, (personal) care, crisis management/organizer, work/school-related matters, e. financial needs include: financial aid, assistance with requesting financial aid, and f. needs concerning criminal proceedings include: assistance with initial actions, such as reporting the crime; advocacy: information/support surrounding the criminal proceedings. Concerning the question of how professionals will respond to victims’ needs, the answers derive from one out of three perspectives: 1. from the perspective of victims’ rights as well as with respect to general attitudes to be considered (e.g. Victim Support Europe 2013; Kirchengast 2017); 2. by providing content-oriented characteristics of support appropriate to respective groups of victims (e.g. Gal 2011); and 3. by giving recommendations that concern certain proceedings such as interviews with victims and witnesses (e.g. Ministery of Justice UK 2011). All these contributions can be considered valuable both in practical-heuristic and systematic regards to prevent secondary victimization and achieve support for victims on a short, middle and long-term basis. The little elaboration done on overarching aspects of victim support though stands in contrast to a number of challenges that professionals face. Among other aspects, the application of competencies and procedures in terms of assessment, planning, implementation and evaluation appropriate to each individual victim’s situation is taxing, especially when professionals interpret the steps of (a) assessment, (b) care planning, (c) implementation and (d) evaluation (sensu e.g. Taylor and Devine 1994), which obviously cover the main tasks in any helping process, in a step-by-step-procedure from (a) to (d). Novices, but also skilled professionals who experience pressure of intervening successfully in critical situations, report being trapped in one or two misconception(s): 1. That the above-mentioned tasks strictly follow one single correct sequence only and/or 2. that the large-dimensioned four units are realized one at a time and once only.

5  New Perspectives on a General Methodology of Victim Support

59

When not identified, reflected and resolved, the practical relevance for victims is immense: a. victims seem to explicitly or tacitly ask for process-orientation while established models seem to imply target-orientation; b. victims seem to require a highly individualized approach while established models seem to preset a standardized procedure; c. victims seem to demand flexibility in providing appropriate support while established models seem to insinuate systematic, conceptual procedures; d. victims seem to deserve to introduce and contribute their own perspectives and needs not only on-topic, but also regarding the helping and support process (“bottom-up”) while established models seem to stipulate that procedural matters are in the responsibility of the professional (“top-down”). In trying to address victims’ needs in the above mentioned range of emotional, practical, informational or regarding criminal proceedings (Kuijpers and ten Boom 2012), professionals in victim assistance can find themselves between these conflicting priorities of intervention approaches (see Fig.  5.1): Either they act adequately to what they feel is appropriate to the needs of the victim or they conform to professional conduct. The opposite approaches create a field of tension and area of conflict between dichotomous, incompatible behavioral alternatives from the perspective of challenged professionals. Consequently, a new paradigm and model is essential to address the needs of the victim.

Fig. 5.1  “Either-Or-Polarities”: Field of tension in dichotomies regarding facets of professional behavior for victim support (Fengler 2017b)

60

J. Fengler

Addressing Victims’ Needs Appropriately Everyone reacts to victimization differently, so victim service and support cannot be conducted in a uniform manner but need to be tailored to the respective individual needs. How can the mentioned misconceptions be resolved and victims’ needs be addressed appropriately? The author developed a meta-methodological model on the basis of both established theoretical concepts and case vignettes (“ALOHA-Intervention-Model”; Fengler 2016, 2017a, b). It is a universal model that is inclusive to all kinds of victims (e.g. of property crimes, violence crimes) – along with being so flexible that it can be customized to unique requirements of intervention, support and help (Fengler 2017a). It can be understood as an alternative to established models by going more into detail and recommending guidelines both regarding attitude and competency for empowerment in social work in general and victim support in particular. The model was developed by the author with the German name “diALOgiscH-­ dynAmisches Impuls-Modell pädagogischen Handelns in der Sozialen Arbeit” [dialogic-­dynamic impulse model of educational behavior in social work]. Besides a German apronym derived from that (see capital letters above), the word ALOHA stands for key characteristics of the model: In the Hawaiian language, “aloha” means “affection”, “peace”, “compassion”, “mercy” (in social work, we use terms like “professional empathy” and “care”); since the middle of the nineteenth century, it also has come to be used as an English greeting to say “hello” and “goodbye” (the model is about holistic client support from the beginning to completion and successful conclusion). Oftentimes, connotations of the word “aloha” cover dynamic ease and lifeward movement, which also applies to the model.

Key Aspects of the ALOHA-Intervention-Model  ey Aspect 1: Assessment, Care Planning, Implementation K all Interlock To start with, we can focus on the tasks of assessment (diagnosing: current state), care planning (defining mutually the evolving goal: desired state) and implementation (guiding: develop current to desired state) and their relation to each other. Visualizing these tasks as intertwined elements (see Fig.  5.2) instead of putting them in a flow process chart such as “assessment → care planning → implementation” or number them consecutively makes it easier to understand that there is not one gap that needs to be overcome after both the assessment and care planning have been conclusively conducted. Instead, all tasks should be understood as interlocking, meaning being closely linked throughout the helping process. As consequence, they need to be considered at that moment in time when they are likely to produce the greatest development in the client. Practice teaches us that when the tasks are performed in relation to all others throughout the whole support process, they entail most potential to generate resources for the other tasks. This will be discussed in more detail later (see Figs. 5.4 and 5.5).

5  New Perspectives on a General Methodology of Victim Support

61

Fig. 5.2  Assessment, care planning and implementation as elements of victim support as intertwined and interacting according to the ALOHA-Intervention-Model (Fengler 2017a)

Key Aspect 2: Evaluation as an Ongoing Re-Assessment Rather than a visualization with consecutive steps, this illustration accentuates one of the fundamental principles of the ALOHA-Intervention-Model: Evaluation is understood as an ongoing process which always takes place simultaneously to the others. Instead of following a strictly predefined linear procedure in terms of one correct sequence and the tasks being considered only one at a time and once only, professionals can handle the tasks more flexibly (see Fig.  5.2: dotted lines with arrows indicate that moving from one task to another is possible), based on their evaluation of the specific requirements. Assessment care planning and implementation can alternate within one single counselling session as well as within a support process that takes weeks or months. Taking this insight of possible dynamics between the main tasks as basic principle, Fig.  5.3 highlights the overall goal in working with clients in applying assessment, care planning and implementation: to help them develop their actual state into the state they aim to achieve by means of guidance and hereby to foster their personal growth (see Fig. 5.3). The gap (potential for development) between the actual situation (see Fig. 5.3: current state; e.g. victim with needs not responded to by others, traumas not coped with) and the target situation (see Fig. 5.3: desired state; e.g. victim with satisfied response to needs, empowered coping strategies) shall be decreased more and more,

62

J. Fengler

Fig. 5.3  Ongoing evaluation as a measure to gradually align the current state and the desired state according to the ALOHA-Intervention-Model (Fengler 2017a)

even by taking small steps. Ideally, both converge in a number of stages in the course of victim support (see Fig. 5.3: develop current to desired state) gradually until they are in line which each other (see Fig.  5.3: current state equals desired state). Once all goals have been achieved, the support process is completed and concluded.

 ey Aspect 3: Main Sequence: Decision-Making Regarding K General Order of Impulses of Assessment, Care Planning, Implementation Regarding the main tasks of victim support (assessment, care planning and implementation), not only one sequence, but diverse sequences can be estimated as appropriate. Adequate consideration is required to find out about the most applicable order of these impulses, with reference to the client, his or her systemic context as well as situational factors. By way of illustration two examples are given below. Example 1:  Some victims seem to ‘loop’ into negative bias out of learned helplessness (Seligman 1974) and do not see a sense of purpose in their actual life situ-

5  New Perspectives on a General Methodology of Victim Support

63

ation. When, for example, in a battered women’s shelter, the assessment of a woman’s actual situation only leads to an round up of facts that are likely to make the client even more devastated and depressed than she already is, it can make sense to first let her speak about her intentions, wishes and maybe plans. By doing so, the professional has a better chance to access the resources of the client. This example shows that in some situations, it is more appropriate to begin the professional guidance with the desired state (see Fig. 5.2: care planning); resourceand solution-oriented methods that aim to support the client to develop perspectives that can initiate empowerment fit much better to start with than behaviors directed to assessment or implementation (see Fig. 5.2). Example 2:  A crucial characteristic of outreach work with homeless people is the fact that professionals do not wait for their clientele to show up in their institution and volunteer for assessment. Instead, social workers get in touch with their clients in their ‘lived environments’, such as the streets, squares and parks of a city. Here and in other contexts of social work and victim support, clients do not seek help actively, but need to be found by professionals. Also, from the outset often victims cannot give, do not accept or do not exhibit deep insights into all aspects of their physical, psychological and social actual or aspired situation to professionals aiming to help them. This example illustrates that there are situations in victim support where it makes sense to initiate the process with relationship building in soothing pace (“client-­ helper relationship”, Shulman 1992) before an assessment that refers to the perceived/subjective as opposed to the factual/objective victimization can properly take place. This relationship building is already part of the guidance and support in the accompanied learning process (see Fig. 5.2: implementation). From this, the professional can deduce information for the diagnosis and detailed analysis of the situation (see Fig.  5.2: assessment) as well as for the mutual definition of goals (see Fig. 5.2: care planning). Thus, real life experience shows that ‘giving the victim a voice’ can require lining up the three elements of support in sequence in varying ways (for details see Fengler 2017a). In total, six different alternatives of combinations can be distinguished methodically (see Fig. 5.4): a . two with the starting point “assessment” (focus: “actual”), b. two with the starting point “care planning” (focus: “solution”, see also example 1 above), and c. two with the starting point “implementation” (focus: “relationship”, see also example 2 above).

64

J. Fengler

Fig. 5.4  Six possible sequences of the tasks “assessment”, “care planning” and “implementation” (numbers indicate order of procedure along one segment consisting of inner, middle, outer ring) according to the ALOHA-Intervention-Model (Fengler 2017a)

Given the variety of options, the first misconception mentioned above is resolved: The tasks assessment, care planning and implementation are feasible in six different possible sequences.

 ey Aspect 4: Process-Orientation and -Regulation: K Dialogue-­Orientated, Flexible and Dynamic Alternation Between Assessment, Care Planning, Implementation Having said that it is relevant to define a sequence as a general orientation, victim support practice also substantiates: The realization of the above-mentioned tasks is not required to be conducted as large units. Instead, support and intervention must be considered as a dynamic, client-oriented, and dialogic process. According to this, one step emerges from another, while incorporating and balancing out both the client’s and the agency’s perspective (Taylor and Devine 1994). Wedlock and Tapley (2016) report about available international evidence on what works to support victims and summarize that there is “a strong evidence base to suggest that the key things that support victims are timely and accurate information;

5  New Perspectives on a General Methodology of Victim Support

65

effective methods of communication with victims, both in delivering information and listening to victims’ needs; multi-agency partnerships across the statutory and voluntary sectors and providing a range of services that are accessible and flexible which victims can access when they need them” (Wedlock and Tapley 2016, p.  25). Understanding evaluation as an ongoing re-assessment (see above) and understanding that being in dialogue and interaction with the person in need as a mean for evaluation broadens the perspective of professionals. Although within the counselling process, a professional might focus on a number of tasks within assessment and feels this is the issue to be addressed first and foremost, the client’s responses and commentaries can contain some information that indicate resources for care planning. In this case, the professional would be well advised to take the comments of the client as indication as to where his or her resources are best accessible at that moment in time, regard this as an (implicit) offer and move towards care planning. The professional will still keep in mind, that assessment is the main task that shall be realized at this stage of the support process in line with the overarching goal to align the actual and the target situation (see Fig. 5.3) and by that adhere to the defined main sequence (see Fig. 5.4). At the same time, he or she is open to positive dynamics and is flexible to switch and alternate as excursus when appropriate. Analogously, the professional and the client may yield unforeseen resources not only from assessment for care planning, but obviously also from all tasks for one of the respective others (see Fig. 5.5).

Fig. 5.5  Process-regulation: Contributions of the tasks for each other and opportunities to alternate in a dynamic, dialogue-oriented way as result of evaluation (re-assessment) according to the ALOHA-Intervention-Model (Fengler 2017a)

66

J. Fengler

An awareness of this enables professionals for thoughtful and prudent decision making (Taylor 2013) for the sake of regulating the process with victims in each case in an individualized manner. The ALOHA-Intervention-Model encourages professionals to tackle the client where resources seem to be most easily available and accessible, where movement, empowerment and support of the client’s own decision making and eventually the satisfaction of his or her needs seem to be most probable at this moment in time. It is quite common that victims seem to somehow inhabitate ‘parallel universes’ and dissociate their hidden self from their public self, respectively real and ideal self (see Johari Window: Luft and Ingham 1955; Fengler and Schäfer 2014). It can be helpful for the professional and the client to move between the actual situation (assessment) and the target situation (care planning), engage in addressing this divide and through this try and help to integrate the fragmented parts of the self (Fengler and Schäfer 2014). So while following the predefined sequence as a sort of overarching scaffold (see Fig. 5.4), a dynamic-dialogic line of action (see Fig. 5.5) is crucial likewise. By meeting victims at the place they are  – in a metaphorical sense –, professionals find it easier to establish confidence and empower them; the likelihood of improving their coping skills and maybe even stimulate posttraumatic growth (Tedeschi and Calhoun 1996, 2004) increases. From a mindset point of view, professionals can have a positive attitude towards unforeseen developments: If something does not work out as it was planned, the attempt needs not be considered as a setback or as a proverbial deadlock (“I thought we are dealing with assessment now… how on earth do I convince the client not to speak about his wishes and plans, as this will be part of the care planning step later?!?”). Instead, professionals can take over the mindset that there is new information, consequently a new situation and that a re-­adjustment of methodical proceedings is likely to be promising (“I have an idea how to get access to where my client is psychologically right now, I will try and follow up on this path to keep the ball rolling and have a look where it leads us to!”). Experienced professionals often describe their work as characterized by ‘practical wisdom’ (Aristotle) rather than by ‘ticking boxes’; the posture that is implied in the ALOHA-Intervention-Model not only encourages professionals in this attitude and facilitates practical work. It is also better for stress regulation and mental hygiene of those trying to help (attitude and competency). Thus, the process regulation between the tasks of assessment, care planning and implementation entails great resources to conduct the support process according to the attitude that the client is an active protagonist of his/her life. When professionals in victim support bear this in mind and align their behavior accordingly, the second misconception mentioned above is resolved: Giving the victim a voice is realized best when the tasks assessment, care planning and implementation are accomplished in a considerate alternation and shift of emphasis in response to stimuli given by the client time and time again. In contrast to that, with inappropriate responses, professionals risk secondary victimization of the person in need (Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs 2009; Laxminarayan 2013).

5  New Perspectives on a General Methodology of Victim Support

67

 ummary of Key Aspects 1 to 4: S The ALOHA-Intervention-Model The demonstrated aspects can be brought together and visualized in one combined illustration (see Fig. 5.6).

Fig. 5.6  The ALOHA-Intervention-Model as a combination of targeted, conceptual procedures and victim-centered process-orientation (Fengler 2016, 2017a, b)

Professionals remain on track and in control with the envisaged overall perspective (actual situation approaching target situation until they converge, see Fig. 5.6: center). This is firstly achieved by decision making regarding the main sequence (see Fig. 5.6: bold line = main sequence, see also Fig. 5.4): The different nature of different cases can be responded to with alternative methodological procedures (e.g. not starting with assessment / “ACTUAL”, but with care planning / “TARGET”). Key criteria for successful application are thoughtful and prudent decisions regarding six possible alternatives for feasible sequences. Secondly, the aim to help the client to get from his/her current to his/her desired state, is achieved by process regulation in alignment with the victim’s needs (see Fig. 5.6: dotted line = process-regulation, see also Fig. 5.5): As professionals move

68

J. Fengler

along following the determined main direction, stimuli of the client can be seized and transformed into opportunities for the work with the client and new dynamics in terms of readjusting support measures. Victim support can be ‘tailor-made’ appropriately by considering the dynamic-dialogic alternation between the elements. Once the actual situation and the target situation have converged for one goal or a few goals (e.g. victim of domestic violence has found new residency), one stage of the support process has been achieved. The matter can be evaluated together by the professional and the client and opportunities for further development can be explored (see Fig. 5.6: opportunity for further development). This includes a (re-) consideration of the new actual situation and the new target situation (operationalized in individual goals, e.g. middle-term financial independence from abusive partner). Accordingly, a new cycle of ALOHA begins. Depending on the complexity of the victim’s situation and the time frame of support, some or many more cycles may follow one another, until all goals (initially as well as ongoing mutually defined between professional and client) have been realized. Once the target situation is achieved, the support process can be considered as successfully completed and concluded.

Conclusions As a result of synthesizing knowledge from theory and best practice and creating this meta-methodological model (attitude) and related tool (competency), victim support practice can be substantiated. Since decisions regarding measures are made depending on the perception and assessment of the requirements at that moment in time, the ongoing support process is fluid. Nonetheless, the target as well as conceptual considerations and given procedures always remain in focus. The field of tension between reportedly incongruous alternatives (see Fig.  5.1) breaks up and the poles come into view as complementary contributions of a co-created helping process (see Fig. 5.7). By providing orientation for sound decision making with respect to both the main direction of methodical proceedings as well as the process regulation, professionals working with victims can operate in a both target- and process-­oriented, standardized and individualized, conceptual and flexible, “top down” and “bottom up” way. Although the ALOHA-Intervention-Model has been introduced with a focus on victim support in this paper, its application is not confined to this area but quite universal for the whole field of social work (see Fengler and Taylor 2019). Professionals aiming to fulfill the triple-mandate of social work in the interest of the client, the government and their own professional self-conception (Staub-Bernasconi 2009) are enabled to balance and integrate all aspects required. The model is also applicable to various contexts where counseling of clients plays a decisive role (such as drug-counseling, working with unemployed people), but also child and youth services or school social work can benefit from its application (see Fengler 2017a). The ALOHA-Intervention-Model both provides a methodological

5  New Perspectives on a General Methodology of Victim Support

69

Fig. 5.7  “Both-And-Combinations”: Complementariness of facets of professional behavior for victim support and intervention (Fengler 2017b)

framework and operationalizes strategies and lines of actions for tasks and duties in very concrete terms – and makes complex professional challenges in social work and victim support easier to handle. It has possible implications, applications and adaptations for a broader spectrum of use, such as institutional guidelines or social welfare policies. In general, the ALOHA-Intervention-Model is a systematic and well-structured conceptual model. It is unique, comprehensive, and intersectional and its application can facilitate the successful delivery of services to a variety of victims. By suggesting these new perspectives on a general methodology of victim support, the model can contribute to further development of victimology as an academic discipline in the understanding of Marc Groenhuijsen (2009).

References Choi, J. J., Green, D. L., & Kapp, S. A. (2010). Victimization, victims’ needs and empowerment in victim offender mediation. International Review of Victimology, 17(3), 267–290. Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs. (2009). Non-criminal remedies for crime victims. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Fengler, J., & Schäfer, P. (2014). Children of offenders: Guilt by association? Dangers of “psychological clan custody” and approaches of psychological support. In P. Schäfer & E. Weitekamp (Eds.), Establishing victimology – a pioneer’s involvement in creating the science of victimol-

70

J. Fengler

ogy – A Festschrift on the occasion of the 30th anniversary Dubrovnik course “Victimology, Victim Assistance and Criminal Justice” (pp. 397–413). Mönchengladbach: Schriftenreihe FB Sozialwesen HS Niederrhein. Fengler, J. (2016). The ALOHA-Intervention-Model: A methodical approach to support clients in social work. Poster: Decisions, Assessment, Risk and Evidence in Social Work, 4th Biennal Symposium in Templepatrick, Nothern Ireland, July 5th-6th 2016. Fengler, J. (2017a). Pädagogisches Handeln in der Sozialen Arbeit. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Fengler, J. (2017b). “Either-or-Polarities” vs. “Both-and-Combinations” for core competencies in social work: The ALOHA-Intervention-Model. Poster: EASSW Conference 2017 in Paris, France, June 26 th-29 th 2017. Fengler, J., & Taylor, B. (2019). Effective Assessment: A key knowledge and skill for a sustainable profession. Thematic Issue of The International Journal of Social Work Education, 38(3), 392–405. Filipp, S.-H., & Klauer, T. (1991). Subjective well-being in the face of critical life events: the case of successful copers. In F. Strack, M. Argyle & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective well-being : An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 213–234). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Gal, T. (2011). Child Victims and Restorative Justice. New York: Oxford University Press. Groenhuijsen, M. S. (2009). Does victimology have a theoretical leg to stand on? Victimology as an academic discipline in its own right? In F. W. Winkel, R. M. Letschert, G. F. Kirchhoff, & P. C. Friday (Eds.), Victimization in a multi-disciplinary key: recent advances in victimology (pp. 313–331). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers (WLP). Kirchengast, T. (2017). Victimology and victim rights. International comparative perspectives. London: Routledge. Kuijpers, K.  F., & ten Boom, A. (2012). Victims‘ needs as basic human needs. International Review of Victimology, 18(2), 155–179. Laxminarayan, M. (2013). Interactional justice, coping and the legal system: Needs of vulnerable victims. International Review of Victimology, 19(2), 145–158. Letourneau, N., Morris, C.  Y., Stewart, M., Hughes, J., Critchley, K.  A., & Secco, L. (2013). Social support needs identified by mothers affected by intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(4), 2873–2893. Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1955). The Johari Window: a graphic model for interpersonal relations. University of California Western Training Lab. Ministery of Justice UK (2011). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures. Retrieved from https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/best_evidence_in_criminal_proceedings.pdf. Seligman, M. E. (1974). Depression and learned helplessness. In R. J. Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research. Oxford, England: John Wiley. Shulman, L. (1992). The skills of helping individuals, families, groups, and communities (3rd ed.). Itasca: F. E. Peacock Publishers. Staub-Bernasconi, S. (2009). Social Work as a Discipline and Profession. In V. Leskošek (Ed.), Theories and Methods of Social Work – Exploring Different Perspectives (pp. 9–30). Slovenia: Faculty of Social Work / University of Ljubljana. Taylor, B. J., & Devine, T. (1994). Assessing needs and planning care in social work. Farnham: Ashgate. Taylor, B. J. (2013). Professional decision making and risk in social work (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Tedeschi, R.  G., & Calhoun, L.  G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455–471. Tedeschi, R.  G., & Calhoun, L.  G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18.

5  New Perspectives on a General Methodology of Victim Support

71

Viano, E. C. (1989). Victimology today: Major issues in research and public policy. In E. C. Viano (Ed.), Crime and its Victims: International Research and Public Policy Issues (pp.  3–14). New York: Hemisphere. Victim Support Europe. (2013). Handbook for implementation of legislation and best practice for victims of crime in Europe. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/events/assises-justice-2013/files/contributions/51.1.1374573250handbookforimplementationandbestpracticefor victimsofcrimeineurope_23713_en.pdf). Wedlock, E., & Tapley, J. (2016). What works in supporting victims of crime: a rapid evidence assessment. Retrieved from http://victimscommissioner.org.uk/app/uploads/2014/10/Whatworks-in-supporting-victims-of-crime.pdf).

Chapter 6

Victim Labeling Theory; A Reappraisal Jan Van Dijk

‘I guess people can’t stand victims who assert themselves and show their strength. They don’t like that. They prefer to see a person who goes away. But that’s not me, – and this then arouses hatred’. Natascha Kampusch in an interview in the Austrian newspaper Der Standard, 10 October, 2019

Introduction In 2005 Marc Groenhuijsen visited me in my home in Amsterdam to discuss whether I would be interested to be the first incumbent of an endowed research chair at a soon-to-be-established institute at Tilburg University devoted solely to the study of victimology. Although I had just started in a new position at the United Nations for which I had worked for nearly seven years, I decided that this offer was too good to refuse. I duly resigned from the UN and returned to academic life in the Netherlands as a full professor at INTERVICT. I have worked happily at INTERVICT for almost ten years, and will forever be grateful to Marc for having caused this radical turnaround in the final stages of my professional life. One of the consequences of Marc’s intervention was that I had to prepare a second inaugural lecture, twenty years after the one delivered at Leiden University as professor of criminology. Since my new chair was in victimology – possibly the first full chair of its kind in the world - I decided to dig for ‘the roots of the discipline’ by analyzing the meaning of the very word ‘victim’. The title of the lecture was The Mark of Abel, reflections on the social labeling of victims of crime (Van Dijk 2006). An extended version was later published in the form of a monograph in Dutch, Slachtoffer als Zondebokken (Van Dijk 2008a) (in English, Victims as Scapegoats), and, in somewhat revised versions, as journal articles in respectively the International Victimological Review under the title: Free the victim: a critique of the Western J. Van Dijk (*) INTERVICT, University of Tilburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 J. Joseph, S. Jergenson (eds.), An International Perspective on Contemporary Developments in Victimology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41622-5_6

73

74

J. Van Dijk

conception of victimhood (Van Dijk 2009) and in the journal Justice Ethics under the title In the Shadow of Christ (Van Dijk 2008).

The Etymology of the Word Victim The first proposition in my 2006 lecture dealt with the etymological history of the word ‘victim’. To English speakers the word suggests it is the opposite of a victor, or the vanquished one. In fact, the word ‘victim’ derives from the Latin word victima, meaning a sacrificial animal. Without exception parties harmed by crime are called ‘victims’ in all Western languages, e.g. Opfer in German, fornárlamb in Icelandic, thema in Greek, zvertha in Russian and victima in all Roman languages (e.g. la victime in French, victima in Spanish and vittima in Italian). Conversely, in other languages persons harmed by crime are described in neutral terms. For example, in Chinese and Japanese the harmed party is described with three characters, denoting the One Who Incurred the Harm (or the Receiving End of the Crime). In such concept the sacrificial connotation is entirely absent. According to the leading dictionaries of European languages, the use of the term victim for harmed persons dates from the seventeenth century. It is notably missing in traditional translations of the bible where they are called the harmed or wounded ones (in Dutch: the beaten ones). Why would speakers of all modern Western languages refer to persons harmed by crime with a term originally denoting lambs or goats killed in pre-modern sacrificial rituals? At first glance it seems a highly unfortunate choice of words for at least two reasons. First, its literal meaning suggests that criminal acts harming fellow human beings might somehow serve a higher, religious goal. This is precisely the reason why many Jewish people reject the use of the word holocaust (denoting sacrifice-by-fire) for the genocide committed by the German Nazis, and prefer the Hebrew word shoah (God forsaken disaster). Secondly, the obvious connotation of the word victima for those so labeled is that such people are irreversibly dead. Perhaps in no other language is this as bluntly expressed as in my native language, Dutch, where victims are called ‘slachtoffers’, or, literally, the butchered ones. In old German the word for victim is similarly ‘Slachtopfer’, later abbreviated to Opfer. Not an uplifting perspective for a person harmed by crime. My subsequent, and original, observation was that the peculiar use of the word victim for harmed persons originates from the denotation of Jesus Christ as the Victim or Slachtoffer in late medieval times, around the time of the Reformation. One of the first was the Swiss Protestant theologist Calvin who called Christ a victima in his foundational book, De Institutiones, of 1536. The Dutch theologist Willem Gnapheus was the first to call Christ ‘slachtoffer’ in Dutch (‘victim of us sinners’). In the seventeenth century, I argued, when images of a suffering Christ became key features of religious art and festivities such as the Passion Plays, speakers of the various European languages seem to have been struck by the resemblance between persons harmed by serious crime and the figure of Christ bearing his Cross.

6  Victim Labeling Theory; A Reappraisal

75

The word victima for Christ was, according to a leading historical dictionary of the French language, used for suffering human beings by extention (‘par extention’) (Rey 2016). Western speakers started to call persons harmed by crime ‘victims’ because they recognized in their sorry condition the suffering of Christ. The word victim’s literal meaning may be sacrificial animal but in European languages it is loaded not with connotations of ritual slaughter but with connotations centering around The Passion of Christ.

Victim Labeling In the second part of my lecture I proposed that the word ‘victim’ is used in Western cultures as a powerful social label. As criminologists of my generation will remember, one of the most influential theories in criminology in the 1960s and 1970s was social labeling theory. According to the American sociologist Edwin Lemert, standing in the tradition of symbolic-interactionism, persons labeled as deviants by state institutions develop a deviant identity which they express in further deviant acts (‘secondary deviance’). In my view, persons harmed by crime are in the Western world not just called victims gratuitously. By being called ‘victims’ they are socially labeled, just as people showing deviant behavior are labeled as criminals according to labeling theory. The use of the word victim for those affected by crime comes with a distinct set of connotations and role expectations. More specifically, the labeling of a person as a victim elicits on the one hand a compassionate response to such person from his/her social environment. This positive response, however, comes at a price. In order to qualify for charity, those labeled as victims are expected ‘to turn the other cheek’ (Matt. 5: 38–42), to comply with the Christian role expectation of non-vindictiveness. This labeling results in the stereotyping of victims as weak, powerless, helpless, passive and meek, as persons without agency. At the institutional level this stigmatization, I argued, results in their exclusion from criminal proceedings. Victims as passive sufferers have no other role to play in a ritual aimed to restore the peace after a crime than to be conspicuously absent from it. The conventional role of the deserving victims is outside of the court, silently weeping in their private sphere (Van Dijk 2009).

Secondary Victim Blaming In my lecture I described the mood shift in the response to victims if they are found to defy the social label of passive sufferer by presenting themselves as resourceful persons actively advancing their personal interests. The outbursts against such wayward victims I called ‘secondary victim blaming’, combining insights from Lemert’s sociological theory of social labeling with Lerner’s social-psychological just world theory.

76

J. Van Dijk

I illustrated this concept with the narrative of the Austrian victim of a prolonged kidnapping, Natascha Kampusch. After she had projected an assertive image of herself in a widely broadcasted TV interview she was attacked in the media and in public as a ‘fake victim’. In my view she was vilified because she had spurned the conventional, pitiful ‘victima label’ and had projected herself as a star survivor instead. In the final paragraph I ventured that those harmed by crime would be better off presenting themselves as ‘survivors’ or harmed persons rather than as victims. Since the publication of my lecture in 2006 and its follow up publications in English and Dutch, several reviews have appeared in scientific journals. In this Festschrift for Marc Groenhuijsen I will try to come to a reappraisal of victim labeling theory, fruit of an academic exercise that would never have been undertaken without Marc’s academic inspiration and leadership as first director of INTERVICT.

Reviewing the Reviewers In this rejoinder I will not try to sum up and discuss all detailed comments made by the reviewers. I will only try to highlight the most important points of criticism levelled against it and to offer my response. In none of the reviews of my lecture, any criticism has been raised against my opening contention that the use of the word victim is universal in Western languages and largely absent outside this language group. The only substantive comment made about this part of my lecture came from an Iranian, now Dutch criminologist, Hoesein Shakeshikian. In my lecture I had observed that, somewhat surprisingly, the victim label seems also to appear in Arab. Criminal law philosopher Fletcher observed that the concept of victim was common to the three religions of Abraham, Christianity, Islam and Judaism (Fletcher 2007). Shakeshikian demonstrated that the words dahiyah and korban are not authentically Arabic but have been incorporated in modern Arabic, and Persian, as loanwords from English or French in the twentieth century (Van Dijk and Sarkeshikian 2013). These words have never been used in classical Arab or Persian texts. In fact, in Persian legal texts the harmed parties are often called the owners of the blood (the ones entitled to take revenge against the killer). This is the exact opposite of the Christian victima label with its connotation of meekness. In Hebrew too, the use of the word korban for those harmed by crime is a recent phenomenon borrowed in the twentieth century from English or French. The word korban does not appear as such in classical Hebrew texts. These linguistical facts lend support to my hypothesis that the word victim has initially been used for Jesus Christ in Western languages. It refutes the alternative hypothesis of G. Fletcher that its use may also have Jewish and Islamitic besides Christian roots (Fletcher 2008). It now seems certain that its origins are indeed, as suggested by me, exclusively Christian. As explained, the second step in my argument is that by calling someone a victim a fully-fledged social label is applied with both positive and negative implications for the persons so labeled. I have over the years tested this hypothesis repeatedly by

6  Victim Labeling Theory; A Reappraisal

77

asking audiences of lectures given in different European countries to share their free associations when reading or hearing the word victim. The answers invariably comprised suffering, weakness, helplessness and passivity. Each time consensus was easily reached on the contents of the label. Fohring (2018) questioned victims of crime in the United Kingdom about their associations to the word victim. Almost without exception they came up with the features of powerlessness and passivity. These empirical results confirm that in our Western culture the label ‘victim’ does exist and is recognized as such by bystanders and victims alike. Less easy to prove is my subsequent proposition that the victima label elicits role expectations for both the labelers themselves as for the persons so labeled. The labeling bystanders are expected to offer compassion to the labeled and where needed their support/charity. Those labeled as victims are expected to imitate their namegiver Jesus Christ, meaning to accept their fate and suffer meekly. These role expectations are not often spontaneously mentioned during free association exercises concerning the word victim. Only actively practicing Christians are still aware of them. Among student audiences this is usually a small minority. However, as I pointed out in the 2006 lecture, that the role expectations of compassion and charity for the sufferer and of forgiveness for the sinner belong to the core of official Christian morality cannot be doubted. Compassion is symbolized in the figure of the Good Sameritan, used as logo for the Amsterdam conference of the World Society of Victimology in 1997 (Luke, 10:33). The piéta, expressing compassion for Jesus Christ, is one of the icons of modern Christianity. Forgiveness is taught by Christ in the gospel in numerous instances, most notably at the Cross where he petitions forgiveness for his executioners: “Father, forgive them, because they know not what they do” (Luke, 23:34). Forgiveness is not just a lofty theoretical biblical concept. It is part and parcel of conventional Christian piety and moralizing. To substantiate victim labeling theory evidence must be found that these typically Christian notions have permeated Western culture outside the immediate sphere of influence of the church. An interesting indication that in the eighteenth century the Christian imperative to ‘suffer in silence’ has been promoted as a generally applicable model can be found in frase 40 of the Mattheus Passion of S. Bach, dating from 1728: “May we in our suffering be like Him, and undergo our persecution silently”. In German: “Und dass wir in dergleichen Pein Ihm Ahnlich sollen Sein, und in Verfolgung Stille Schweigen”. In this beautiful frase the general audience of a highly popular musical performance is explicitly invited to follow the example of Jesus Christ in adversity. In our times theologists seem to be somewhat ambivalent or even embarrassed about the Christian morality to turn the other cheek. Somewat to my surprise both a Protestant and a Roman Catholic theologist reviewing my work explicitly questioned that forgiveness is, or has ever been, a central moral imperative of Christianity (Smit 2008; Lascaris 2011). Although I consent that biblical texts on forgiveness in for example the books of Luke and Matthew can be interpreted in different ways, the historical fact remains that generations of Christians have been taught to forgive those who sinned against them in their daily prayers (“And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”). Exhibiting wrath is

78

J. Van Dijk

considered one of the deadly sins in Catholicism. All Dutch persons of my age brought up in one of the Protestant’s denominations remember the moralizing saying: “Do not wail but bear your burden and pray to God” (in Dutch: “Niet klagen maar dragen en bidden om kracht”). Another Protestant theologist, Theo De Wit, acknowledged in a public debate about my ideas organized by the Protestant Church Netherlands the Christian tradition of dolorism, meaning the celebration of meek suffering in the Spirit of Christ (De Wit 2013). Although I had myself never heard of the term dolorism before, it neatly puts the finger on the undercurrent in Christian theology which I see as the origins of the victima label. In a 2014 Ted talk on victim labeling theory for the University of the Netherlands, available on Youtube, I referred to the comments made in the Dutch Parliament in 1953 by the Minister responsible for Water Management, Jacob Algera, representing the Calvinist Party, after two thousand people in the province of Zealand drowned in a major flood. Blamed by the opposition for insufficient investments in the maintenance of dikes, he responded that no dikes could ever offer full security against floods ‘Because who can withstand the Hand of God?’. This defense apparently did not cause offence at the time. In the eyes of many Calvinists, historically a powerful force in Dutch society, the horrendous impacts of the floods had to be suffered meekly as God’s Rightful Punishment for Our Sins. Dolorism is not limited to fundamentalist streams within Protestantism but is a centuries old, powerful trend in Catholicism as well. Biographical accounts of Mother Theresa highlight her personal cult of suffering (Chetterjee 2016). She is quoted as saying: “There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering”. Victim labeling theory can be regarded as a critical analysis of the impact of the dolorist side of Christianity on the treatment of crime victims in the Western world.

Galona’s Review In an extensive article in the International Victimological Review American theologist Galona (2017) critiqued the historical-theological elements of my theory. He first asserts that the Latin word victima was used already in Roman times for human beings in distress and that our modern use of it cannot therefore be seen as an offshoot from Christian imageries of the suffering Christ. However, as he himself admits the word victima in the Latin citations from the poet Ovid and others is used in a purely metaphorical sense. Examples of the metaphorical use of the word ‘victim’ for human beings can be found in the dictionaries of all European languages (for example: ‘he became a victim of his own greed’). In fact, in the Bible itself Christ is in the gospel of John (1:29) metaphorically compared with a sacrificial Lamb. In my view it is not this vague, metaphorical usage of the term ‘victim’ that has been the springboard of its extended, colloquial use for denoting human beings harmed by crime. That springboard was the usage of the word ‘victim’ stressing

6  Victim Labeling Theory; A Reappraisal

79

Christ’s pain and deep suffering at the Cross, realistically expressed in much Renaissance art as well as in the highly popular Passion Plays. Galona’s second criticism is levelled against my assertion that the latter figurative use emerges around the time of the Reformation. Here Galona makes two points. First, the use of the word ‘victim’ to denote Christ in a figural sense was not exclusively, or even primarily, introduced by Protestant theologists like Calvin. Many Roman Catholic theologists have named Christ victima in a figural sense around the same time as well. To my recollection I have never either in writing or when lecturing claimed that the figural use of the word victima for Christ was an exclusively Protestant invention. I have just observed that this use surfaced around the time of the Reformation. This observation was primarily informed by my findings concerning the introduction of the word ‘victim’ in my own native language, Dutch. In Dutch the word ‘slachtoffer’ was, as mentioned, first used for Jesus Christ by a Protestant theologist. Dutch Protestant theologist Van Eyk (2013) in a reaction to my inaugural lecture observes that Protestantism has probably greatly facilitated the entry of the word into colloquial Western languages simply by promoting official translations of the Bible from Latin into vernacular languages. Without Protestantism the word victima for Christ would not so easily have found its way into the German or Dutch languages as ‘Slachtopfer’/‘slachtoffer’. My reference to the Reformation was also informed by a Dutch Catholic theologist and author, André Lascaris, whose work has been influenced by the theory of the French-American philosopher René Girard that all religion is rooted in scapegoating imagery. Building on Girard’s theory, Lascaris (1993) contends that the image of Christ became more blatantly sacrificial during the time of the Reformation for social-psychological reasons. He interprets the newly emerging sacrificial Christology as a reponse to the mental crisis in Western societies caused by fundamental social transformations in late medieval times. In his view, this crisis made people across Europe clamor for fresh scapegoating imagery (Lascaris 1993). Lascaris mentions the writings of Thomas of Aquino as an early example, besides those of Calvin. So, I agree with Galona that Protestant theologists were not the only ones who called Christ a ‘victim’ in figural sense. If that had been the case, the spread into all colloquial languages of Europe, including Southern Europe, could never have been as ubiquitous as it has been. More fundamental than the relative role of Protestant or Roman Catholic theologists in the adoption of the victima label seems Galona’s second point, namely that the figural use of the word victim for Christ dates from much further back than the seventeenth century. According to Galona the early Church fathers never used the word victima for Christ since this would have undermined the portrayal of Christ as Victor, a King at equal footing with the Roman Emperor. However, the trajectory towards an image of Christ as victima started much earlier than I had assumed. It appears to have been initiated already by theologists in the eleventh century. In late medieval times:“Christ is labeled victima to stress his sacrificial role and now also his role as a suffering person”. Galona concludes “The ambiguous sense of the Latin victima was reinforced by the Catholic Christological tradition and in this

80

J. Van Dijk

form was imported into the thesauruses of the emerging vernaculars throughout Europe”. To sum up Galona’s critique, the use of the word victima for human beings in all Western languages does indeed originate from the sacrificial image of Christ but this process started earlier than presumed by me and was less closely linked to the Reformation. I interpret this critique as an endorsement of the historical part of victim labeling theory with the amendment that the use of the word ‘victim’ as a special name for Jesus Christ as sufferer predated the Reformation.

The Reality of Victim Labeling Today Although the history of the victim label explains where our current use of the word came from, victim labeling theory’s relevance for victimology lies in its potential to explain current responses to crime victims. It should be able to shed light on current phenomena or trends that cannot otherwise be satisfactorily explained. With this in mind, I challenged my collegue and friend at INTERVICT, Anthony Pemberton, to act as sparring partner in a debate on the scientific merits of victim labeling theory. He duly wrote a critique of my ideas which appeared in the Newsletter of INTERVICT (Pemberton 2010) and later, in a revised version, in a journal (Pemberton 2012). And I wrote a rejoinder distributed through the institute’s internal Newsletter. Pemberton showed himself to be underwhelmed by both the validity and explanatory power of victim labeling theory. The most contentious issue for him was my interpretation of secondary victim blaming as a manifestation of victim labeling. He first questions the methodological soundness of the evidence for victim labeling theory consisting of seven selected case histories of high-profile victims including Natascha Kampusch and the couple Mc Cann (Van Dijk 2009). If I would have written the piece now, I would have added the case history of Emma Sulkowicz, a rape victim labeled as ‘little liar’ on bill boards around the Columbia University campus after having publicly protested against her victim status in an art performance. In Pemberton’s view I had failed to present any quantitative data to back up my propositions. As a criminologist whose signature work consists of standardized victimization surveys, I had to grant him this methodological point. From a positivist perspective my collection of case histories amounted to tentative evidence at best. To my defense I pointed out that qualitative research methods are part and parcel of the symbolic-interactionist tradition in sociology to which social labeling theory and victim labeling theory undeniably belong. At one point symbolic-­interactionism became even known as ethnomethodology, or the stream in Sociology applying the qualitative methods of Cultural Anthropology. The subtle negotiations between social actors about their roles in the arenas of social life have from the outset been studied mainly with qualitative methods. Certain social phenomena such as victim labeling can better be primarily approached with qualitative methods than with

6  Victim Labeling Theory; A Reappraisal

81

advanced statistical operations of hard data. To my satisfaction Fohring (2018), just cited, shares this eclectic methodological position. Labeling theorists did not want to measure characteristics of ‘criminals’ but to study and understand why and how certain persons are labeled as such. In order to look at his subject-matter through a clean lense, critical criminologist Louk Hulsman deliberately avoided using the term ‘crime’ in his studies and spoke of ‘incidents’ or ‘conflicts’ instead. In the same vein, victimologists testing victim labeling theory should study the experiences of persons harmed by crime or regarded as such, rather than the experiences of ‘victims’. We should not take the labeling of those harmed by crime as ‘victims’ for granted. A proven method to explore victim labeling processes seems the collection of stories of harmed persons of what happened to them during and after the harmful event. For this reason, I arranged unstructured focus groups with survivors of different forms of serious ‘incidents’ including different types of violent crime, traffic accidents, fatal medical errors and airplane crashes (Van Dijk and Van Mierlo 2009). Many participants narrated how bystanders and officials had reacted to their situation in unhelpful ways (for example, medical doctors blaming victims of medical errors for negligence or for having mental problems). For her PhD study on sexual abuse by clergy in Protestant churches in the Netherlands, theologist Van den Berg-Seiffert (2015) conducted unstructured in-­ depth interviews with a sample of survivors. Her findings describe how Church communities struggled to offer compassion to the survivor and restore the peace in the community at the same time. At the end of the process all survivors had somehow been pressurized to leave their Church community. Their narratives neatly demonstrate the hidden processes of secondary victim blaming and victim scapegoating. Had survivors and church leaders been interviewed with conventional questionnaires, they would probably have conveyed a totally different, much more positive story about what had happened.

Just ‘Just World Theory’? According to Pemberton’s critique, the concept of secondary victim labeling was not only empirically poorly underpinned but, worse, seemed to serve no explanatory purpose at all. In his opinion a more parsimonious explanation for victim labeling is offered by just world theory. In this view victims are disliked because they threaten people’s belief in a just world where bad things only happen to people who have asked for it. This tendency to reassure ourselves of our immunity by blaming victims for their fate is, in Pemberton’s view, universally human and wholly unrelated to Christianity. To underline this point, he refers to research showing that non-­ Christian people are actually more inclined to blame victims for their fate than Christians because Christians believe that justice will be served in the afterlife. Interesting as this finding may be, it does not in my opinion refute the hypothesis of secondary victim blaming. The point to be explained in the case of Natascha

82

J. Van Dijk

Kampusch, for example, is that an initial outpouring of compassion  - strangers sending loads of second-hand clothes and dolls to her hospital address - turned sour the moment she presented herself as a resourceful survivor rather than meek sufferer. I fail to see how just world theory can explain this mood shift. To Kampusch’ own bewilderment these secondary negative responses to her persona have never abated. Ten years later she is still heckled when using the underground in her hometown Vienna (Kampusch 2017). Is such personal hatred really just another instance of victim blaming by those protecting their precious belief in a just world? Do Viennese people really feel threatened in their belief in a just world by the now ten-year-old story of the kidnapping of an innocent eight-year old girl? Or are they, as victim labeling theory assumes, motivated by hatred against a social rebel who rejected the victima label and spurned their Christian charity by making good on her own strength and becoming a respected activist, TV star and author to boot? She herself surely thinks so, and defiantly presented herself at the launch of her book as a strong, courageous survivor. In my rejoinder to Pemberton I suggested experimental research using vignettes to test aspects of victim labeling theory, e.g. by comparing responses of Christian and secular respondents. Such experiments have to my knowledge not been carried out. However, in the meantime, several quantitative studies, some carried out at INTERVICT have shown results which are supportive of victim labeling theory. Boyle and Clay-Warner (2018) carried out a survey in the USA among young women about the implications of the victim label: Being a ‘victim’ and calling the perpetrator a ‘rapist’ appeared to be associated with shame and PTSD, most likely because these are stigmatizing labels that cause identity disruption and anxiety. Finally, ‘survivors’ do not have increased shame or PTSD. Instead, this more powerful and active identity is associated with anger and relationship termination.

The authors conclude that their study generally supports rape workers’ and activists’ move towards calling women ‘survivors’ instead of ‘victims’, just as suggested by me in my 2006 lecture. Papendick and Bohner (2017) demonstrated in a vignette experiment that the use of the word ‘victim’ in both English and German led respondents to perceive a woman who had been raped as weaker, more passive, and more innocent compared to a female ‘survivor’ (‘überlebende’) of rape. This finding corroborates a large part of victim labeling theory. In a follow up study Schwark and Bohner (2019) found that male readers are more likely to blame rape victims for what happened when they present themselves as ‘survivors’ rather than ‘victims’. The latter finding comes close to confirming the hypothetic mechanism of ‘secondary victim blaming’ when the harmed person defies the stereotype of the victim. An alternative interpretation along the lines of just world theory makes little sense: those who seem to have ‘survived’ their ordeal surely are less threatening to other people’s belief in a just world than those who seem devastated, so why would they be blamed more strongly. Results of another recent experimental study showed that observers generally respond more negatively to victims of physical violence expressing anger rather than sadness (Bosma et al. 2018). Also, an empirical study among laypersons and

6  Victim Labeling Theory; A Reappraisal

83

legal professionals showed that both groups expect victims of serious crime to be sad rather than angry. Even more to the point, prosecutors and judges were found to be more willing to engage in an empathic dialogue with victims conforming to the expected stereotype of enduring sadness than with angry ones (Bosma 2019). In conclusion, empirical evidence for victim labeling theory comes from both quantitative and qualitative research and seems to warrant further empirical scrutiny and theoretical reflection.

Explaining the Rise of the Victims’ Movement One of the interesting sociological questions thrown up by the victims’ rights movement is its belated, near universal emergence around 1985. Why did this not happen much earlier? If victim labeling is grounded in Christianity it seems logical to assume that the emergence of an international victims’ rights movement around 1985 is related to ongoing secularization. As I pointed out in my lecture, the first victim support programs mushrooming around 1985 across the Western world were part of a politically left wing, often feminist grass root movement critical of established institutions including the church. Pemberton in his critique of victim labeling theory (2012) begs to differ on this issue as well. He is inclined to agree with Garland (2001) that the victims’ rights movement was driven by a neo-liberalist political program and forms part of a new, right-wing ‘culture of control’ or ‘punitive turn’. On the history of the victims’ rights movement little scholarly work has so far been done, besides Rock’s older studies of the early stages of the movement in the United Kingdom (Rock 2004). For me the linkage between neo-liberalist punitiveness and the emergence of victims’ rights is far from obvious in continental Europe. In many continental European countries a neo-liberal ‘punitive turn’ around 1985 is hard to discern, leave alone that the victims’ rights movement was part of it. Even if such nexus could be proven for the UK and the USA, this would not refute the competing hypothesis that secularization acts as the long-term driver of the international victims’ movement. The issue what factors propel the ongoing victim-­ friendly reforms across the world seems far from settled and more research into the secularization hypothesis warranted. In sum, my debate with Pemberton about the scientific merits of victim labeling theory has, as intended, helped me at the time to better understand its stronger and weaker points. The evidence for the theory may still be tentative, important elements of victim labeling have over the past years been corroborated in qualitative as well as experimental research. Victim labeling theory definitely deserves further attempts at falsification, with both qualitative and quantitative methods. On reflection Pemberton’s bold claim that just world theory – and neo-liberalism – explain everything about victims and responses to victims under the sun, and that no special victimological theories like victim labeling are needed, seems untenable. Symbolic-­ interactionism may no longer be as fashionable as it once was, but it still seems a promising approach to study the framing of those harmed by crime as ‘victims’.

84

J. Van Dijk

Responding to the Harmed Party Lemert’s labeling theory focused on the responses to crime rather than on the causes of crime or the motivations of offenders, and had important policy implications. It formed the theoretical basis for reductionist and abolitionist criminal policies. Victim labeling theory is likewise a theory not about victims but about responses to those harmed by crime and has obvious implications too, in this case for extensionist victim policies. In the final part of my lecture I discussed the negative impact of victim labeling on the treatment of harmed persons by service providers including psychiatrists, criminal justice officials and, finally, restorative justice advocates. As Ditton et al. (1999) has shown, early victimological studies exclusively focused on the victims feeling of fear and largely ignored feelings of anger. Clinical psychologists and psychiatrists have also portrayed those harmed by crime mainly as fearful and distressed. Post-traumatic Stress Disorders were up till recently grouped under Anxiety Disorders. Much less attention was given to their feelings of anger or revengefulness. Over the past ten years the clinical approach to crime victims has undergone significant changes. Post traumatic stress is no longer subsumed under fear syndromes in the newest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). There is a growing interest in concepts like resilience, post-traumatic growth and post traumatic anger. The development of Eye Movement Densitization & Reprocessing (EMDR) as an evidence-based intervention has been a game changer in the treatment of traumatic stress (PTSD). EMDR does not label those harmed by crime or accidents as ‘victims’ but helps them to regain their strength by fighting their demons. From a critical, victim labeling perspective these trends are to be welcomed.

Victim Participation A significant part of my lecture dealt with the treatment of those harmed by crime by the criminal justice system. I critiqued the exclusion of crime victims from criminal proceedings as resulting from the belief that those harmed by crime should, as good victims, forgive their sinners and stay silent about their due punishment. In this context I referred to the model performance of the devoutly Christian Amish who, when summoned, often refuse to give testimony and allow themselves to be arrested for contempt of court. Victim labeling theory logically seeks to find a role for the victim in criminal justice as key participant. In my lecture I pleaded for full procedural rights for the harmed persons in the criminal trial, arguing that the average harmed person, when allowed access to court, would not, as often feared, act like a mad Medeas but as a normal, responsible citizen who could help the judges to come to a better informed and more balanced sentencing decision.

6  Victim Labeling Theory; A Reappraisal

85

This part of my lecture has proven to be by far the most controversial. In several reviews my appeal to grant victims an unconditional right to speak up in court, was deemed either risqué (Daems 2008; De Wit 2013) or, given the inherently adversarial nature of criminal procedure, not realistic or at least over-optimistic (Cleiren 2009; Kool 2009; Groenhuijsen and Letschert 2012). Walgrave (2009) warns me against adding fuel to the wildfire of ‘penal populism’ by asking for more voice for the harmed persons. This criticism echoes that of Garland (2001), who, as mentioned, accused victim rights advocates of fueling punitive criminal policies. As the literature shows, there is little empirical evidence that victim participation leads to more severe sentencing (Van Dijk 2008). But even if it does, such possible side effect would not justify the continued exclusion of the victim from criminal proceedings. If victims are no longer framed as silent sufferers in the spirit of the Mattheus Passion, they can rightfully claim a place in a ritual designed to deal with the aftermath of crime. Their participation may, or may not, result in more severe sentences, in my view victim participation is a fundamental right for those harmed by the crime and a value in itself. According to ritual: it restores the peace by silencing and expulsing the offender as a scapegoat. This hidden role of criminal justice has been elaborated by Swiss criminologist Christian-Nils Robert (1986) and, in the Netherlands by Janssen (1991). To this theorizing about latent functions of criminal justice in the theoretical framework of Girards’ scapegoating theory, I have added that the ritual of criminal proceedings not just expels and incapacitates the offender but the victim too. In other words, criminal justice seeks to restore the peace by scapegoating both parties of the crime with one ritualistic stroke. According to Girard (1977) scapegoating in times of crisis of witches or Jews could no longer bring peace when the veil had been lifted and it was understood as such. The scapegoating of offenders has been incrementally revealed in the course of the twentieth century. The violence in criminal justice has subsequently been mitigated in a series of reforms over the past fifty years e.g. by abolishing capital punishment and reducing imprisonment, and by replacing the goal of stigmatization by social reintegration. The hidden scapegoating of the victim of crime is still poorly understood. This part of the veil has not yet been lifted. In my lecture I was just cautiously pulling at its fringes. Criminal justice officials and experts can therefore continue scapegoating victims in good faith. Criminal justice experts, such as many of my reviewers, still fully concur with the practice. The exclusion of the victim is, to borrow Girard’s words, still seen as ‘good violence’. From a doctrinal legal perspective, the integration of a third party in the criminal trial will certainly require many procedural and attitudinal adaptations. A play with three characters triggers other dynamics than one with two and requires other rules. However, in a secular society, where the sacrificial nature of criminal justice regarding victims is incrementally revealed and understood, harmed parties can no longer be excluded with a good conscience. To accommodate victims in the trial suitable procedural solutions will somehow have to be found.

86

J. Van Dijk

Recent experiences with victim opinion statements in Dutch courts, at first grudgingly permitted by the judiciary, seem by now to have born out my optimism that such innovations are feasible and will benefit the harmed parties (Lens et al. 2010). Victims and/or their lawyers speaking up in court have in the Netherlands in just ten years become a common and largely uncontroversial practice. As expected by me, victims have become less dissatisfied. Sentences have not become more severe. On the contrary, the prisoners’ population of the Netherlands has over the past ten years dropped by an unprecedented forty percent. The introduction of new victims’ rights in the Netherlands since the turn of the century has gone hand in hand with a distinct non-punitive turn. One of the most favorable reviews of my lecture came from Dutch philosophizing criminologist Hans Boutelier (Boutellier 2007). Boutelier in his PhD thesis interpreted the emerging ‘victim-centeredness’ of criminal justice as an inevitable consequence of secularization. In the absence of religion, the harmed person offers the only possible justification for imposing punishment on offenders, thus relegitimizing criminal justice. I fully agree with his thesis that criminal justice had to become increasingly victim-centered but in one vital respect our positions differ. In my view criminal justice cannot convincingly become victim-centered without the involvement of the harmed persons in flesh and blood themselves. Only extended victims’ rights in criminal procedure can give the criminal trial its new, urgently needed, victim-based legitimacy (Van Dijk 2009b). Without victims as active parties the criminal trial will increasingly be seen as an empty ritual. The role of victims in the International Criminal Court is a case in point. The practice of victim-participation is deemed unsatisfactory by many commentators. Their contribution to the search for the truth appears to be limited and their involvement may often not bring closure for themselves. However, a court adjudicating humanitarian and war crimes without victim-participation would nowadays lack all legitimacy. Outspoken victims are needed to allow the court to do its healing work. The function of the victims’ unit at the ICC is to assist victims to de-label themselves and play their indispensable role in court, not as victims but as harmed parties demanding retribution and redress. The victim’s voice is also what is often painfully missing in criminal trials against organized crime and grand corruption. In order to enhance the legitimacy of the fight against organized crime, representatives of collective victims need to be involved in trials of perpetrators of so-called victimless crimes, and confiscated assets need to be given back to the community (Van Dijk 2011). Recently this plea was heeded by some leading prosecutors in the city of Rotterdam. In 2015 a team of police officers and prosecutors visited the Mayor of Palermo, Leoluco Orlando to be briefed on his experiences of presenting his city in anti maffia trials as “partie civile” and to ask the court to donate confiscated assets to organizations advancing local social agendas. Informed by this mission the Rotterdam prosecutorial office donated in December 2017 in a widely advertised event a vessel confiscated from cocaine traffickers to the Maritime University of Rotterdam to carry out environmental research in the Arctic.

6  Victim Labeling Theory; A Reappraisal

87

Victim-Centered Restorative Justice The last part of my lecture was a demasqué of the first generation of restorative justice programs as covert applications of old-fashioned, Christian victim labeling. The ideal victim of Restorative Justice is, I argued, a meek, forgiving person, someone who duly complies with the victim label. Nils Christie’s seminal article of the ‘ideal victim’ was interpreted by me as conceptually imaginative but deeply conservative in spirit at the same time. Society may see ‘ideal victims’ as innocent, frail old ladies but, more importantly, both society and Christie himself, favour meek, forgiving victims in the Christian tradition regardless of their status or age (Christie 1986). In its early stages, RJ has in my opinion been far from empowering or liberalizing for victims. In the words of Pavlich (2005) victims are typically led through a process of preparation “to adopt a particular identity”: “They should keep control of their emotions as far as possible, and never become abusive or revengefull… if possible victims are encouraged to forgive”. In other words, victims are coerced to adopt the identity of a “ideal victim” in the Christian sense. One of the founding fathers of American RJ, Burt Gallaway, expressed his expectations about victims in the following way: ‘I do not think that we can live with a situation where victims are permitted to be passive by-standers in the healing process or, worse, are encouraged to harbor and nurse vengeance and hatred’ (cited by Richards 2005). In other words, the victim better be good. Although harmed parties are invited to play a role in RJ proceedings, it is a heavily scripted role whose focus on forgiveness and reconciliation may prevent them from advancing their true interests. The ritual may mainly serve the community and the offender. This part of my lecture was, somewhat to my surprise, rather favorably received in at least some reviews (Blad 2009; De Wit 2013). The reviewers seemed inclined to agree with me that first generation RJ had been insufficiently victim-sensitive. In this domain, as in that of criminal justice, much has changed since 2006 and mostly for the better. In an article in Restorative Justice, I applauded the emphasis in new international legal instruments on the need to protect victim rights within RJ programmes (Van Dijk 2013). RJ is no fit for all solution. In the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention against Violence against Women of 2011 automatic referrals of victims of domestic violence to RJ programmes are expressly prohibited. In its current manifestations in the Netherlands RJ has developed into an optional service available to harmed persons besides other empowering services and entitlements. Under certain circumstances and conditions RJ might even be a viable alternative to criminal proceedings, especially when committed by minors. In case of serious crimes, well-prepared meetings between victims and convicted offenders can be a valuable ‘after sales service’, potentially benefitting both parties.

88

J. Van Dijk

In Conclusion Conventional labeling theory has provided the theoretical underpinning of fundamental reforms of criminal justice aimed at making it more humane and less damaging for offenders. Victim labeling theory logically argues for criminal justice reforms in another direction, making it more humane and less damaging for the harmed party. When persons harmed by crime will have broken free from the victima mold, they will increasingly claim their day in court as participant in the trial as a natural right. Granting them that role will increase their satisfaction with the proceedings and enhance the peacemaking potential of criminal justice systems in an increasingly secular Western world.

References Blad, J. (2009), Handelingsruimte voor slachtoffers, Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht, 9 (1) Bosma, A. (2019). Emotive justice: Laypersons’ and legal professionals’ evaluations of emotional victims within the just world paradigm, PhD Tilburg University, Tilburg: Wolf Legal Publishers. Bosma, A., Mulder, E., Pemberton, A., & Vingerhoets, A. (2018). Observer reactions to emotional victims of serious crimes: Stereotypes and expectancy violations. Psychology Crime & Law, 1–21. Boutellier, J. C. J. (2007). Het onbekende slachtoffer: Bespreking: J.J.M. van Dijk, The Mark of Abel. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 49 (2), 194–199. Boyle, K. & J. Clay-Warner, J. (2018). Shameful “Victims” and angry “Survivors”: Emotion, mental health, and labeling sexual assault, Violence and Victims, 33(3), 436. Christie, N. (1986), The ideal victim. In E.  Fattah (Ed), From crime policy to victim policy, (pp.17–30). Palgrave Mc Millan. Chetterjee, A. (2016). Mother Teresa: The Untold Story. New Delhi, India: Fingerprint Publishers. Cleiren T. (2009). Het spreekrecht in het Nederlands strafproces getoetst aan een emancipatoir slachtofferperspectief, Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht, 9(1). Daems T. (2008). Boekbespreking: J.J.M. van Dijk, Slachtoffers als zondebokken. Over de dubbelhartige bejegening van gedupeerden van misdrijven in de westerse cultuur. Panopticon: tijdschrift voor strafrecht, criminologie en forensisch welzijnswerk, 29 (5), 109–113. De Wit T. (2013) Criminality, judgement and eschatology. In: Dutch Reformed Theological Journal [Nederlands Gereformeerd Teologiese Tydskrif (NGTT)] 54(3–4), p.109–120. Ditton, J., Farrall, S., Bannister, J., Gilchrist, E., & Pease, K. (1999). Reactions to Victimisation: Why has Anger been Ignored? Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 1(3): 37–54. Fletcher, G.P. (2007), Volume 1, The Grammar of Criminal Law: American, Comparative, and International. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fletcher, G.P. (2008) Responses to the critiques of the Grammar of Criminal Law, Criminal Justice Ethics, (27)1, 99–103. Fohring S. (2018). What’s in a word? Victims on ‘victim’. International Review of Victimology, 24(2), 151–164. Galona, Y., (2017), From ritual to metaphor: The semantic shift in the concept of ‘victim’ and medieval Christian piety, International Review of Victimology, 1–16. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

6  Victim Labeling Theory; A Reappraisal

89

Girard R. (1977). The violence and the sacred. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press [originally published in French in 1972 by Grasset]. Groenhuijsen, M. & Letschert, R. (2012), Over spreekrecht plus en een twee fasen proces, In: M. Groenhuijsen, R. Letschert & S. Hazenbroek, KLM van Dijk, Liber Amicorum J.J.M van Dijk, Nijmegen (pp.137–153). Wolf Legal Publisher. Janssen, P.E.L. (1991) Geweld als oorsprong van de samenleving. Over de cultuurtheorie van René Girard. Helmond: Dissertatiedrukkerij (diss. VU). Kampusch, N. (2017), Ten years of freedom. Dachbuch Verlag. Kool, R. (2009). Slachofferemancipatie in machtskritisch perspectief, Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht, 9(1). Lascaris, A. (1993) Het soevereine slachtoffer. Baarn: ten Have (The souvereign victim). Lascaris, A. (2011), Slachtoffers staan op, In M. Elias & A. Lanscaris, Rond de Crisis; reflecties vanuit de Girard Studiekring (Victims are Rising), pp. 167–181. Lens, K. M. E., Pemberton, A., & Groenhuijsen, M. S. (2010). Het spreekrecht in Nederland: Een bijdrage aan het emotioneel herstel van slachtoffers? Tilburg: INTERVICT. Papendick M., & Bohner G. (2017) “Passive victim  – strong survivor”? Perceived meaning of labels applied to women who were raped. PLoS ONE 12(5): e0177550. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0177550, first published May 11, 2017. Pavlich, G. (2005). Governing paradoxes of Restorative Justice. London: Glasshouse Press Pemberton, A. (2012). Just-world victimology: Revisiting Lerner in the study of victims of crime. In H. Morosawa, J. J. P. Dussich, & G. F. Kirchhoff (Eds.), Victimology and human security: New horizons (pp. 45–69). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers (WLP). Pemberton, A. (2010). The justice motive, not victim labeling: A discussion with Jan van Dijk, INTERVICT Newsletter, July 2010. Rey, A. (2016). Dictionaire Historique de la langue francaise: Victime: parlant du Christ 1642/ Corneille, Paris: Editions Le Robert, p. 2450. Richards (2005). Unlikely Friends? Ophrah Winfrey and Restorative Justice. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 38(3), 381–399. Robert, Ch.N. (1986). L’ imperative sacrificielle. Justice penale: au dela de l’ innocence et de la culpabilité. Lausanne. Rock, P. (2004). Constructing victims’ rights; the Home Office, New Labour and Victims. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smit, J. (2008). Slachtofers zijn niet zielig, Trouw, 27 September 2008 (Victims are no loosers) Schwark, S. & Bohner, G. (2019). Sexual violence - “Victim” or “Survivor”. News Images Affect Explicit and Implicit Judgments of Blame, Violence against Women, 25(12), 1491–1509. Van den Berg-Seiffert, C. (2015), Ik sta erbuiten- maar ik sta wel te kijken, Boekencentrale Academic, PhD thesis Protestantse Theologische Universiteit te Amsterdam-Groningen (The relational dynamics in congregations in the aftermath of clergy sexual misconduct from the perspective of the primary victims). Van Dijk, J.J.M. (2006). The Mark Of Abel: Reflections On The Social Labeling of Victims of Crime. Inaugural lecture delivered on November 2, 2006 at the University of Tilburg on the occasion of the official acceptance of the Pieter van Vollenhoven Chair in Victimology, Human Security and Safety. See www.tilburg.edu/intervict Van Dijk, J.  J. M. (2008). In the shadow of Christ? On the use of the word “victim” for those affected by crime. Criminal Justice Ethics, 27(1), 13–24. Van Dijk, J.J.M. (2008a). Slachtoffers als Zondebokken: Over de Dubbelhartige Bejegening Van Gedupeerden Van Misdrijven in de Westerse Cultuur. (Victims as Scapegoats: On the Ambivalent Attitude Towards Those Harmed by Crime in Western Culture.) Apeldoorn/ Antwerpen: MAKLU. Van Dijk, J.J.M. (2009), Free the victim: A critique of the Western conception of victimhood. International Review of Victimology 16(1), 1–33.

90

J. Van Dijk

Van Dijk, J.J.M. (2009b). De herrijzenis van het slachtoffer in het strafproces: Een dupliek. Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht, 9(1), 70–76. (The resurrection of the victim in criminal procedure; a rejoinder). Van Dijk, J. J. M., & van Mierlo, F. (2009). Leemten in de slachtofferhulpverlening: Resultaten van een verkennend, kwalitatief onderzoek onder verschillende categorieën gedupeerden van ingrijpende gebeurtenissen. Tilburg: INTERVICT. Van Dijk, J.J.M. (2011), Transnational organised crime, civil society and victim empowerment, In Letschert, R. M. & van Dijk, J. J. M. (eds.). The new faces of victimhood, globalisation, transnational crimes and victim rights (99–125). Dordrecht: Springer. Van Dijk, J. J. M., & Sarkeshikian, H. (2013). On the contrasting concepts of victimhood in Christian and Islamiccultures. In K. Boers, T. Feltes, J. Kinzig, L. W. Sherman, F. Streng, & G. Trüg (Eds.), Kriminologie -Kriminalpolitik - Strafrecht (pp. 291–303). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Van Dijk, J. J. M. (2013). Victim-centred restorative justice. Restorative Justice, 1(3), 426–429. Van Eyk, R. (2013), Oude wijn en lange tenen; In: Ouwerkerk et al., Hoe te reageren op misdaad?, SDU Uitgevers, p. 105–119. Walgrave, L. (2009), Welke weg volgen voor de ontvoogding van slachtoffers, Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht, 9(1).

Part II

Types of Victimization

Chapter 7

Arab Girls at Risk of Victimization: Cultural and Personal Characteristics Mally Shechory Bitton and Donya Hawa-Kamel

Introduction Arab Israelis, who are a minority ethnic group in Israel, comprise approximately 20% of the country’s population and are mostly Muslim (84%). In recent decades, Israeli Arabs have been undergoing major processes of modernization, including urbanization and social and political change. Despite the development of Arab society in Israel, it is still a traditional patriarchal society (Azaiza 2006). Most Arabs in Israel have a common heritage as well as cultural values that differ from those of Jewish society. Their basic language is Arabic, and they have a distinct cultural, religious, national, and historical identity (Shechory Bitton and Silawi 2016). The Arab society is mostly oriented towards the acceptance and practice of dictated religious values and traditional norms, sometimes through utilization of pressure and close supervision, particularly when it comes to women (Haj-Yahia 1995). “Protecting one’s honor“is a value that is the foundation of social pressure directed at women in Arab society. It is also the reason for resistance in Arab society to any deviation from the customary norms and to any refusal to follow the course clearly outlined by tradition and social laws. This resistance is also evident in Arab society’s attitude to teenage girls. The changing needs that emerge in adolescence and the transition to womanhood within a patriarchal society expose these girls to considerable familial and social pressures. Any refusal to follow a preset course gives the father, whose authority is challenged,

M. Shechory Bitton (*) Ariel University, Ariel, Israel e-mail: [email protected] D. Hawa-Kamel Western Galilee Academic College, Acre, Israel © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 J. Joseph, S. Jergenson (eds.), An International Perspective on Contemporary Developments in Victimology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41622-5_7

93

94

M. Shechory Bitton and D. Hawa-Kamel

a pretext to control his daughters through strict supervision that includes restrictions as well as maltreatment. In some cases, the responses can result in aggravation of the girls’ behavior and in their social and mental deterioration (Shechory Bitton and Kamel 2014). Aside from the challenges inherent in adolescence (e.g., Rueger et  al. 2008), teens in traditional societies (e.g., the Arab society), and especially girls, also have to contend with life in a traditional society that follows a strict and conservative set of values. The difficulties can intensify in the case of Arab girls who are defined as “being at risk.” Life in a strict and conservative patriarchal society has the effect of amplifying the abnormal situation of these girls and increasing their distress. The difficulties of these girls are also a result of the social inclination to deny and conceal the problem from public eyes, for concern of the severe social stigma that might be attached to the girls and to their families. In fact, this is one of the main reasons for current limited knowledge on the prevalence of Arab girls at risk. Azaiza (2006) explained the complex situation of teenage girls in Arab society by stressing the significance of the social context - the loneliness, as well as the threat to their well-­ being posed by those closest to them. The current study focuses on teenage girls at risk in Israel’s Arab society who are defined as such by the Service for Teenage Girls and Young Women at the Israeli Ministry of Labor and Welfare. About 15% (i.e., 330,000) of all children in Israel are classified by the social services as in distress or at risk, with more Arab children at risk than Jewish children (Khoury-Kassabri et al. 2015). Regardless of ethnic origin, most teenagers at risk are in the initial stages of a severe family conflict or exhibit initial symptoms of neglect and disturbance, or even of serious deterioration marked by inability to function, prostitution, and drug abuse. These children grow up in economically and socially “disadvantaged” families characterized by low parental levels of education, low occupational status, and crowded living conditions (Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs and Social Services 2017). This description fits the perception of teenagers at risk as among the most vulnerable to various predicaments as well as to psychological, social, behavioral, and educational disorders (Hussey and Guo 2005). Limited attention has been paid to Arab teenage girls (e.g., Ashkar et al. 2006; Azaiza et al. 2008; Shechory Bitton and Kamel 2014). The cultural and social characteristics described above may explain why (Azaiza 2006). We intended to expand the field by exploring the differences between Arab teenage girls at risk and normative Arab teenage girls with regard to variables found related to risk behaviors among teens: self-harm, traditionalism, self-control, and aggression.

Self-Harm and Aggression, Self-Control, and Traditionalism Suicidal behaviors, such as self-harm or self-injury, have been known in various forms since before the Christian era as the intentional and direct harm to one’s body tissue (Glenn and Klonsky 2010; Sansone and Sansone 2010). Acts of self-harm may begin in early adolescence (age 12–14) and reach their height by the end of adolescence and beginning of adulthood (Jacobson and Gould 2007). The

7  Arab Girls at Risk of Victimization: Cultural and Personal Characteristics

95

prevalence of self-harm reported in different studies varies depending on the methodology used (Burešová et al. 2015). The most common figures range from 1% to 4% among the general population, with a much higher prevalence among adolescents (14–39%) (e.g., Toprak et al. 2011), and even higher among girls (Resch et al. 2008), particularly girls at risk (Peter and Roberts 2010). While self-harm behaviors are socially unacceptable (Dyle 2008; Favazza 2006; Glenn and Klonsky 2010), in Arab society they are perceived as even more problematic, due to strenuous proscription of suicide by the Koran. Research findings show low suicide rates in Muslim societies, often interpreted as resulting from the strong condemnation of self-inflicted death by the Koran (e.g., Gal et al. 2012). Those who investigated suicidal behaviors based their findings mostly upon Caucasian populations in western societies. Only a few studies examined other ethnic or racial populations (e.g., Harel-Fisch et  al. 2012; Ngwena 2014). Thus, a knowledge gap exists regarding the relationship between ethnicity and self-harm (Ashkar et  al. 2006; Kuentzel et  al. 2012). Social pressures exerted on research participants may bias the diagnosis of self-harm in Arab societies (Gal et al. 2012). Self-harm has been associated with an array of risk factors, for instance high levels of substance abuse, behavioral problems, and family problems (Griffin et  al. 2011; Nock 2010). Research has found high levels of aggression (for a review see O’Donnell et  al. 2015) and low self-control (Dougherty et  al. 2009; Glenn and Klonsky 2010) among the general population as well as among populations characterized by self-harm, including teens (e.g., Harel-Fisch et  al. 2012; Kissil 2011; Aviad-Wilchek 2014). The relationship between aggression, self-control, and traditionalism, and engaging in risk behaviors were also found in various studies. Higher levels of aggression and lower levels of self-control (Griffin et al. 2011), as well as lower traditionalism (Caspi et al. 1995; Castro et al. 2009), have been linked to risk behaviors such as substance abuse, irresponsible sexual behavior, etc. Various theories have explained the relationships between the above variables (aggression, self-control, and traditionalism, and engaging in risk). With regard to teenagers, the Social Control Theory (Hirschi 1969) and the General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990) are the most common theories used in the literature to describe factors motivating teens to engage in dangerous and criminal activities. Hirschi (1969) emphasized the absence or weakening of four social control factors: commitment, involvement, belief, and attachment. The stronger and more positive these factors, the more conformist the individual’s behavior. Subsequently, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) added individual traits that differentiate between adolescents engaged in illegal or legal activities. According to their theory, people with low selfcontrol are self-centered, impulsive, seek risks, and lack the ability to delay gratification. Compatible with Gottfredson and Hirschi’s assumptions, the research findings have consistently shown that low self-control is a robust predictor of a wide range of delinquent and maladaptive behaviors (e.g., Vazsonyi and Huang 2015). Based on the literature, it may be assumed that (1) Arab girls at risk will report higher rates of self-harm, and be characterized by higher aggression and lower selfcontrol and traditionalism, than normative Arab girls; (2) negative correlations will be found between self-harm and self-control and traditionalism; (3) positive correlations will be found between self-harm and aggression.

96

M. Shechory Bitton and D. Hawa-Kamel

Method Procedure and Measurements Convenience sampling was used to recruit the sample. After receiving permission to enter a school (where we located normative teenage girls) and a day care facility (where we located girls at risk), and after receiving parental consent, the research questionnaires were distributed in coordination with the counsellors at each institution. All the girls who agreed to participate in the study (120 of 128) signed a letter of consent. They completed the questionnaires at a location that guaranteed privacy and anonymity. All the girls completed the questionnaires listed below: A socio-demographic questionnaire: The questionnaire gathered information on age, parents’ marital status, number of siblings, level of education, religiosity, etc. Also, questions on the participant’s childhood and family background (e.g., Did you spend your childhood at your parents’ home or elsewhere? Did any of your close relatives (parents, grandparents, siblings) engage in any form of criminal behavior?) (answered by yes/no), etc. The Self-Harm Inventory (SHI) (Sansone et al. 1998): consists of 22 questions that refer to various situations, such as “Have you ever cut yourself?”, “Have you ever burned yourself?” The questions are answered by “yes” or “no” (α = .87). Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) (Tellegen 1982; Patrick et al. 2002): Three dimensions were used to assess traditionalism (27 items, α = .73), self control (24 items, α = .77), and aggression (20 items; α = .71). For each item participants were required to rank the description presented in the item as “true” (1) or “false” (0). The overall score was the sum of all scores on items answered by the participant, such that a high score indicated high levels of aggression and self-­ control (See also: Shechory et al. 2011).

Results  ifferences Between the Groups by Sociodemographic D and Background Variables The research sample comprised 120 Arab teenage girls (118 Muslim and 2 Christian). Half were defined as teens at risk and the other half as normative teenage girls studying at a regular school (the control group). Girls in the at-risk group attended a nonresidential community therapy center designed to meet the needs of teenage girls defined by the social services as being at-risk (age: M  =  16.27, SD  =  0.93). The control group attended a regular Arab government-funded high school (age: M = 16.98, SD = 0.89). Analyzing the sociodemographics and background of each group shows that all the girls in the control group and most of those in the at-risk group grew up in their

7  Arab Girls at Risk of Victimization: Cultural and Personal Characteristics

97

parents’ home and were living there at the time of the study. The families of the at-­ risk girls were larger (Z = 3.58, P