Rural Victims of Crime: Representations, Realities and Responses 036767761X, 9780367677619

Citation preview

This volume flls a critical gap in the literature and signifcantly advances knowledge on rurality and victimization. Rich in detail and broad in scope, it ofers a thoughtful and provocative challenge to the urban bias evident in victimization theory, research, and practice. A must read for all scholars and students interested in victimization and social contexts. —Jillian Turanovic, Associate Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University

Victims of crime are neglected globally – and even more so in rural areas. Harkness and Hale address this void through Rural Victims of Crime, ofering an innovative assessment of ‘the rural victim’. The book is an expedition through notions of place and space, constructions of rural victims in a variety of contexts, and the impact that geographic location has on the type and prevalence of victimisation. A mustread for academics and students of the subject. —Willie Clack, Senior Lecturer in the School of Criminal Justice, the University of South Africa, Pretoria

Victimisation research typically focuses on urban settings, despite diferences in experiences, impacts, risks, barriers to help-seeking, and responses in rural areas – as victim/survivors, advocates and practitioners can attest. This important collection provides much needed insights, evidence, theoretical and conceptual contributions, and calls for greater attention (and resourcing) beyond the cityscape. —Bridget Harris, Associate Professor of Criminology, Monash University and Deputy Director, Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre

This volume signifcantly expands our understanding of victimization by situating it in a global rural context. Opening chapters lay the groundwork for coverage of a range of substantive topics, each structured around a theoretical framework. Case studies accompany these topics, putting a human face on each. —Ralph Weisheit, Distinguished Professor of Criminal Justice, Illinois State University

This book brings to the forefront the vital link between the need to understand the context of victimisation for the billions of rural peoples around the world, and their great need for access to justice services in the countries where they live. —Joseph F. Donnermeyer, Professor Emeritus, The Ohio State University

RURAL VICTIMS OF CRIME

Rural Victims of Crime ofers a pioneering sustained assessment of ‘the rural victim’. It does so by examining and analysing the conceptual constructs of a victim and challenging the urban bias of victimisation and victimology in criminological study. Indeed, far too much criminological scholarship is based on the false assumption that rural areas are relatively crime free – and thus free, too, of victims. Providing international perspectives, chapters in this edited collection focus centrally on notions of place and space, and constructions of rural victims in a variety of contexts, exploring the impact that geographic location has on the type and prevalence of victimisation. The concept of victimisation is often considered in terms of interpersonal relationships between humans, neglecting the potent impact of victimisation of non-humans and the natural and built environment. Rural Victims of Crime discusses existing notions of victimology in relation to non-human subjects, broadening conceptualisations of the victim and associated impacts resulting from victimisation. Structured in three parts, Rural Victims of Crime conceptualises the rural victim, enhances understanding of the realities of rural victimisation and considers both formal and informal responses to rural victimisation. Chapters are accompanied by practical, contemporary case studies to connect theory with praxis. This book is an essential and valuable resource for academics, students and practitioners alike in the felds of criminology, criminal justice, rural studies, victimology, geography, sociology and spatiality. Rachel Hale is an independent researcher based in Melbourne, Australia. Alistair Harkness is a senior lecturer in criminology at the University of New England, Australia.

Routledge Studies in Rural Criminology Edited by Joseph F. Donnermeyer The Ohio State University

For a long time, criminological scholarship that focused on rural people and communities was lacking. Thankfully, those days have begun to wane, being replaced by a more vigorous intellectual examination of rural crime and criminal justice issues. The Routledge Series in Rural Criminology is the frst series dedicated to signifcant criminological and criminal justice issues afecting rural peoples and rural communities. It brings together rural criminology scholars across the world in order to actively apply, critique, and revise criminological theory. More than that, the books in this series show how the implications of their research are key for crime prevention, policing, and criminal justice policy in rural areas. This series will highlight the best and most innovative research and theorizing in rural criminology. In doing so, it promises to be foundational in the development of this evolving feld. Rural Crime Prevention Theory, Tactics and Techniques Edited by Alistair Harkness Woman Abuse in Rural Places Walter S. DeKeseredy Research Methods for Rural Criminologists Edited by Ralph A. Weisheit, Jessica Rene Peterson and Artur Pytlarz Rural Victims of Crime Representations, Realities and Responses Edited by Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

RURAL VICTIMS OF CRIME Representations, Realities and Responses

Edited by Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

Designed cover image: GoodLifeStudio First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 selection and editorial matter, Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness to be identifed as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifcation and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-0-367-67761-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-67763-3 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-13269-1 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691 Typeset in Bembo by Apex CoVantage, LLC

CONTENTS

Notes on contributors List of fgures List of tables Foreword Preface Acknowledgements 1 Rural victims of crime in contemporary context Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness PART I

Representations

x xv xvi xvii xviii xx 1

13

2 Measuring and researching rural victimisation Rachel Hale, Alistair Harkness and Kyle J.D. Mulrooney

15

3 Access to justice for rural victims Joseph F. Donnermeyer

27

4 Rurality, crime and fear of crime Vania Ceccato

38

viii Contents

PART II

Realities 5 Interpersonal violent victimisation beyond the cityscape Ethan M. Rogers, Mark T. Berg, James C. Wo and William Alex Pridemore

49 51

Case study: lethality beyond the cityscape

65

6 Male violence against women in rural places Walter S. DeKeseredy

68

Case study: rural battered women syndrome

80

7 Victims with disabilities in rural areas Marg Camilleri Case study: barriers to reporting victimisation for rural victims with complex communication needs 8 Victimisation of the vulnerable older rural resident Barbara Blundell, Emily Moir and Amy Warren Case study: applying the crime triangle to Indigenous rural elder abuse 9 Modern slavery in agrarian settings Richard Byrne and Kreseda Smith Case study: farm worker victimisation by an organised criminal gang in the United Kingdom 10 Victims of farm crime Gorazd Meško and Katja Eman Case study: metal rods in corn – when personal resentment exceeds all limits of normal 11 Victims of hate crime in rural communities Melina Stewart-North, Rachel Hale and George Van Doorn Case study: beard cutting as hate crime in a rural Amish community

83

97 100

114 117

129 132

145 148

160

Contents

12 Rural victims of the climate crisis Rob White Case study: my home is on fre 13 The natural and built rural environments as victims Louise Nicholas and Suzie Thomas Case study: Rio Tinto destruction of Juukan Gorge cave system, Western Australia PART III

Responses 14 Legal supports and services for rural victims Hannah Haksgaard Case study: South Dakota’s rural attorney recruitment program 15 Policing rural victims Danielle Watson, John Scott, Tifany Sutherland and Lamese Laponi Case study: policing rural victims in the Pacifc Island State of Tuvalu 16 The provision of support and advocacy for rural victims Shelly A. McGrath and Melencia Johnson Case study: victim advocacy in the Delta Region of the United States 17 Community-level responses to rural victimisation Tarah Hodgkinson Case study: implementing SafeGrowth in North Battleford and Roma

ix

163 174 177

189

193 195

207 210

220 224

237 241

252

18 Rural victimology scholarship into the future Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

256

Index

267

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Mark T. Berg is a professor and collegiate scholar in the Department of Sociology

and Criminology at the University of Iowa, and the Director of the Crime and Justice Policy Research Program at the University of Iowa Public Policy Center. His research interests include interpersonal violence, the developmental pathways of antisocial behaviour and the life-course determinants of physical health and well-being. Barbara Blundell is a senior lecturer and research academic in social work at the

Curtin School of Allied Health, Curtin University, Western Australia. Her research interests focus on elder abuse, ageing and disability issues, caregiving, human rights and advocacy. Barbara is a Fellow of the Australian Association of Gerontology and is on the editorial board of the journal SN Social Sciences. Richard Byrne has over 25  years of pracademic experience in rural land management. He has been involved in the advancement of the feld of ‘stabilisation agriculture’, developing integrated livelihood solutions in countries afected by or emerging from confict, and projects relating to modern slavery and human traffcking, particularly in agricultural settings. His current work focuses on human security and climate change impacts on food security relating to confict and human exploitation. Marg Camilleri is a senior lecturer in criminology and criminal justice at Federa-

tion University Australia. She has worked in the community, legal and government sectors for over 20 years, returning to academia in 2014. Her main areas of research include the systemic, legislative and policy responses to victims of crime, in particular police response to victims/survivors with disabilities. Vania Ceccato is a professor at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,

Sweden. Her research includes the geography of crime and fear in urban and rural

Notes on contributors

xi

environments. She wrote the open access book Rural Crime and Community Safety (Routledge, 2016), and she is coordinator of the Safe Places network, a partner of the UN-Habitat SaferCities program. Walter S. DeKeseredy is Anna Deane Carlson Endowed Chair of Social Sciences, Director of the Research Center on Violence, and Professor of Sociology at West Virginia University in the United States. He has published 27 books, over 120 scientifc journal articles and 90 scholarly book chapters on violence against women and other social problems. Joseph F. Donnermeyer is a professor emeritus/academy professor in the School

of Environment and Natural Resources at The Ohio State University, and is an adjunct professor at both the Research Center on Violence at West Virginia University and the Centre for Rural Criminology, University of New England, Australia. He is the author/co-author of over 100 peer-reviewed publications issues related to rural crime and rural societies. Katja Eman is an associate professor of criminology at the Faculty of Criminal Jus-

tice and Security, University of Maribor in Slovenia. Her research interests include green and rural criminology, victimology, penology, crime prevention and crime mapping. She has (co)authored publications on crime and criminal justice, including on victims of environmental crime. Hannah Haksgaard is a professor at the University of South Dakota Knudson School of Law in the United States, where she teaches courses in the areas of Property and Family Law. Her scholarship focuses on America’s rural attorney shortage and how rural families in America own and manage property. Rachel Hale is an independent researcher, a research associate with the Centre for

Rural Criminology at the University of New England in Australia and a member of the International Society for the Study of Rural Crime’s executive. Her critical, feminist research promotes decarceration, prevention and access to justice. Alistair Harkness is a senior lecturer in criminology and co-director of the Centre for Rural Criminology at the University of New England in Australia. His primary research interests are in rural acquisitive crime, with a particular emphasis on crime prevention, policing responses and community partnerships. Tarah Hodgkinson is an assistant professor in the department of Criminology

at Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada. She is also a SafeGrowth practitioner. Her research interests include rural criminology, crime prevention, policing, spatial criminology and community safety. Melencia Johnson is an associate professor of sociology at University of South

Carolina Aiken in the United States. Her research interests include rural victim

xii Notes on contributors

advocacy, women and girls’ participation in crime and feminist criminological pedagogy. Lamese Laponi is a Police Inspector in the Tuvalu Police Service, and has served

various sections in the police including the Criminal Investigation Department, prosecution and general policing. He holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of the South Pacifc, majoring in Pacifc policing, management and public administration. Shelly A. McGrath is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Alabama at Birmingham in the United States. Her research interests include rural crime, domestic violence, fear of crime and animal abuse. Gorazd Meško is a professor of criminology at the University at the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security of Maribor in Slovenia. He has conducted several comparative research projects in South-Eastern and Eastern Europe, including the development and legitimacy of policing, crime prevention, fear of crime and crimes against the environment. Emily Moir is a lecturer in criminology and justice at the University of the Sunshine Coast in Australia. She is an environmental criminologist and crime analyst who is interested in how certain environments and situations enable opportunities for crime. Kyle J.D. Mulrooney is a senior lecturer in criminology and co-director of the Centre for Rural Criminology at the University of New England. His primary feld of research is rural criminology in which he has published on a wide range of issues from crime prevention and policing to drug consumption and criminal justice. Louise Nicholas is an award-winning independent researcher and educational consultant based in England. She has published extensively on crime prevention issues, with a particular interest in crimes against heritage assets and the environment. William Alex Pridemore is SUNY Distinguished Professor in the School of Criminal Justice at the University at Albany, State University of New York in the United States. His primary research interests include social structure and homicide, alcohol and violence, cross-national homicide rates, rural criminology, and the sociology of health and illness. Ethan M. Rogers is an assistant research scientist in the Crime and Justice Policy Research Program at the University of Iowa Public Policy Center in the United States. His research utilises quantitative analyses to explore interpersonal confict and violence, the spatial distribution of crime across communities, trends in fatal and non-fatal violence and the health consequences of incarceration.

Notes on contributors

xiii

John Scott is a professor in the School of Justice, Queensland University of Tech-

nology in Australia and a Member of the Australian Research Council College of Experts. He has written extensively about crime in rural and remote places. Kreseda Smith is a lecturer in land and information skills, and senior researcher in

Harper Adams University’s Rural Resilience Research Group (3RG) focusing on agricultural crime, farmer mental health, behavioural science and modern slavery/ human trafcking within agriculture. She is co-chair of the Rural Criminology Working Group for the European Society of Criminology. Melina Stewart-North is a doctoral candidate at Federation University Australia. Her research investigates digital vigilantism in Australia, considering the nature, infuences and impacts of ‘netilantism’. She has a background in psychology and criminal justice. Her research interests include issues situated around the rural frontier and barriers to accessing justice. Tifany Sutherland is a doctoral candidate and sessional academic in the School

of Justice, Queensland University of Technology in Australia. Her general research interests are in the areas of homicide and interpersonal violence and crime and the media. Suzie Thomas is a professor of heritage studies at the University of Antwerp in Bel-

gium, and is a member of the AntweRp Cultural HEritage Sciences (ARCHES) research group. She researches and teaches heritage crime and also has interests in participatory approaches to heritage and so-called ‘dark’ or difcult heritage. George Van Doorn is a senior lecturer in psychology at Federation University Australia. He is also the co-lead of the Successful Health for At-Risk Populations (SHARP) research group. George’s research focuses on perception, personality, trauma and health-risk behaviours during the emerging and young adult periods of the lifespan. Amy Warren is a doctoral candidate and sessional academic at Curtin Univer-

sity in Australia. She has research expertise in the areas of elder abuse and family and domestic violence. She is passionate about bringing attention to women’s experience of violence, particularly older women, whose experiences are often overlooked. Danielle Watson is a senior lecturer in the School of Justice at Queensland University of Technology in Australia. She conducts research on policing in developing small-island territories with particular interest in police capacity building, recruitment and training, responses to domestic and family violence, strategies for improved police/community relations, as well as many other areas specifc to policing in developing country contexts.

xiv

Notes on contributors

Rob White is Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Criminology at the University

of Tasmania in Australia, and an Adjunct Professor at the University of New England in Australia. Among his recent books are Theorising Green Criminology (Routledge), Crossroads of Rural Crime (edited with Alistair Harkness, Emerald), Critical Forensic Studies (with Roberta Julian and Loene Howes, Routledge), The Extinction Curve (with John van der Velden, Emerald) and Advanced Introduction to Applied Green Criminology (Edward Elgar). James C. Wo is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Crimi-

nology at the University of Iowa, and a Research Fellow at the University of Iowa’s Public Policy Center. His research interests include neighbourhoods and crime, local institutions and organisations, land uses and quantitative research methods.

FIGURES

4.1 A tentative conceptual model of fear of crime in areas on the rural-urban continuum 5.1 United States violent victimisation lethality rate ratio (number of homicides per 100,000 violent victimisations), 1995–2019 6.1 The continuum of woman abuse 8.1 An example of the crime triangle for the abuse of older people (adapted from Eck, 2003, p. 89) 15.1 Map of Tuvalu

43 66 70 103 221

TABLES

5.1 Non-fatal assault rates per 1,000 and percent change by location, 1993–2019 5.2 Homicide rates per 100,000 and percent change by location, 1995–2019 10.1 Worry about diferent forms of crime 10.2 Perceptions of crime forms in rural areas 10.3 Reasons for not reporting crime

54 56 140 140 141

FOREWORD

It is truly difcult, if not impossible, to ascertain if the occurrence of crime committed against people who live in cities is higher, about the same or lower than for people who live in rural areas. Police and other forms of ofcial data may conclude that rates of urban victimisation are higher than rural rates, but then again, ofcial statistics can be notoriously inaccurate and amazingly unreliable. Nonetheless, a great many criminologists cling to the thrill of wrapping fancy statistics around questionable data and are blinkered by dunderheaded notions that rural crime is not very important and does not deserve their serious scholarly attention. These stubborn biases may not soon go away, but they do become more and more antiquated as the twenty-frst century moves into its third decade. Yet, like the Ptolemaic misbelief that the sun revolves around the earth, or the equally silly notion that the earth is fat, as books like Rural Victims of Crime are published, an urban-centric bias will look more and more laughable and the need for a reassessment or even replacement of the dominant theories in criminology will need to be done. From these 18 chapters emerges a collective wisdom that invites a larger criminological truth and a more vibrant criminological imagination. Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness have created, through their editorial expertise, a contribution that will greatly advance victimology, rural criminology and criminology in general. This book brings to the forefront the vital link between the need to understand the context of victimisation for the billions of rural peoples around the world, and their great need for access to justice services in the countries where they live. Joseph F. Donnermeyer Editor of the Routledge Monograph Series in Rural Criminology

PREFACE

Despite a recent surge in rural crime focussed publications, the existing and sustained body of literature on victimology is almost entirely urban focused. Rural victims are neglected in the extant literature on victimology, and Rural Victims of Crime forms the only sustained assessment of rural victims. With a regional, rural and remote lens, this book addresses a signifcant knowledge defcit and a clearly identifable gap in contemporary understandings of rural victimisation. Existing scholarship on victimisation tends to focus narrowly on understanding victimisation in ‘the rural’ as the same as that in ‘the urban’. There is, thus, a need to widen the scope of investigations into initiatives that attend to causation of and responses to victimisation and ofending in rural areas specifcally. A key, overarching aim of this book is to develop and contribute enhanced knowledge around crime victimisation based on place, and to provide a contemporary comprehension of rural victimisation internationally, identifying contemporary trends and issues. This collection aims to contribute signifcantly to an understanding of rural victimisation, the incidence of it and its varying impacts, and will enrich the comprehension of victimisation and place within a broader global framework. A central theme of the book is the reality of rural victimisation: it is important that this reality be captured, not only through the quantifcation of the issue but also through the voices of rural victims via qualitative narratives of rural victimisation. The voices of victims are relatively silenced in a general sense, but increasingly so for those living in regional, rural and remote communities. Hence, the chapters throughout this collection draw not only on quantitative studies of rural victimisation but also on research which has employed rich, qualitative methods to capture the reality of rural victim experiences. The term ‘survivor’ is sometimes used in place of the word ‘victim’. This is common in certain areas of research, particularly in relation to sexual or domestic

Preface

xix

and family violence. It is recognised that the term ‘victim’ may not refect the individual’s own view of their situation. However, for the purposes of describing the development of the realities and complexities of rural victimisation, the term victim will be used throughout this book to identify someone or something that has experienced ofending behaviour.

Structure of this book A primary objective of Rural Victims of Crime is to bring forward research, scholarship and commentary that ofers a critical insight into the reality of rural victimisation. It seeks to be international  in nature, with chapters contributed from authors across the globe; intersectional, with a focus on the inter-relating efects of age, gender, ethnicity, indigeneity class, sexuality and ability on rural victimisation; and critical, challenging normative, homogenous conceptualisations of rural victimisation. Structured in three parts, the book canvasses the representations of  the rural victim, enhances understanding of the realities of rural victimisation and considers both formal and informal responses to rural victimisation. Chapters in Parts II and III are accompanied by practical, contemporary case studies to connect theory with real cases and contexts. Part I is concerned with establishing and reinforcing the central themes of the book, providing a theoretical framework and exploring scholarly understandings of crime, victimisation and rurality and disabusing the notion that crime victimisation is mainly an urban issue. Chapters in Part II explore the realities of rural victimisation, considering an array of circumstances in which rural people and places are victimised, by whom and how. Chapters in this section have been logically ordered, considering human victimisation of certain groups by other people; human victimisation by organisations; and non-human victims (places, structures, fora and fauna). Part III focuses on responses – government and non-government – to rural victimisation. These chapters meld theory with practice, and each contain recommendations for reform to policy and practice in an international context.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We take this opportunity to thank the editor of this Routledge Studies in Rural Criminology series, Joe Donnermeyer, for recognising the importance of this topic and ofering his fulsome and ongoing support. Much gratitude is also extended to Tom Sutton, Routledge’s commissioning editor, Jessica Phillips, our editorial assistant, and the rest of the Routledge team for their patience and guidance as we travelled on the journey to bring this volume to fruition. Finally, a big thank you to each of the contributors to this edited collection for their thoughtful additions to the canon of rural criminological scholarship. Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

1 RURAL VICTIMS OF CRIME IN CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

Whereas criminology is the study of crime broadly, victimology is the study of victims of crime and the causes of victimisation more specifcally. Early notions of victimology were not developed by criminologists or sociologists, but rather by poets, writers and novelists, even though some writings about the victim appeared in many early works by criminologists. The concept of a particular science to study victims – and consequently the term ‘victimology’ – had its origins in the 1940s. Since this time, the sub-discipline has focused on urban spaces with little regard for the unique phenomenon of rural victimisation. Much of the theorising about victimisation and victimhood that has been developed has been derived from urban contexts, which begs the question of the applicability of existing explanations and frameworks to the rural setting. Whilst there is a plethora of scholarship in a multitude of forms which canvass a wide array of types of victimisation and theories of victimology, there exists no sustained body of work which assesses the intersection of ‘rurality’ and ‘victimisation’. This book seeks to redress this through the examination of the intersection of place (specifcally rurality) and victimisation; and through consideration of the representations and realities of – and responses to – rural victims in contemporary context.

Contemporary dimensions of rural victimisation Hodgkinson and Harkness’ (2020) introduction to Rural Crime Prevention, the frst volume in this Routledge Studies in Rural Criminology series, identifed that crime across most industrialised countries has been declining since the mid1990s. Given this, they questioned why a new book devoted to crime prevention, with a rural focus, was necessary. The rationale, they argue, was fve-fold: (i) despite a decline, crime has not been eradicated; (ii) the veracity of crime data is problematic; (iii) there is ongoing conjecture as to the cause of crime reduction;

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-1

2

Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

(iv) country-level responses have not seemingly translated to rural communities; and (v) there has been a skewed crime prevention focus on urban communities. These same key reasons apply equally to rural victimisation. There are many reasons why we ought to care about rural ofending, perhaps most signifcantly because the victimisation which results is negatively and immensely impactful. Ceccato (2016, 2022) identifes an array of reasons why we should care about rural crime, amongst them that crime is not solely an ‘urban problem’, that lower crime rates in rural areas does not equate to no problems and that reporting rates may be lower too; that rural areas are constantly being transformed and the very nature of rural areas infuences crime; and that perceptions of safety are unequal. We can also consider that rural ofending has signifcant economic implications. Thefts from farms, for instance, will ultimately increase the costs of farm outputs, with the efects being felt by consumers at the supermarket or grocery store. A pensioner on a fxed income will feel this most acutely. Lost farm productivity and farmers leaving the sector because of victimisation will have even wider fnancial impacts, such as in local communities when farmers no longer make purchases from other local businesses; and on national gross domestic product brought about by fewer exports (Harkness & Donnermeyer, 2022). The social impacts of victimisation in rural communities can also be immense. Again, thinking about acquisitive crime on farms, this can manifest itself in relationship breakdowns, increasing violent behaviour against others or in self-harm, as well as in mental health deterioration for victims. Existing farm crime research has not paid much attention to the nexus between agricultural crime as a stressor and mental health, although Smith (2020) has embarked on doing so with a focus on farmers in the United Kingdom. In the worst-case scenario, farmers (particularly men) can take their own lives as the strain of victimisation, in addition to other stressors, becomes too much (Kennedy et al., 2020) – an action that can have a ripple efect of devastation throughout a small community. In order to consider appropriate responses to rural victimisation, we must consider it both locally and globally, transcending artifcial boundaries; intersectionally, with a focus on the inter-relating efects of gender, ethnicity, indigeneity, class, age, ability and sexuality on rural victimisation; and critically, challenging normative, homogenous conceptualisations of rural victimisation. To do so, this chapter (and indeed this book as a whole) will consider the representations and the realities of – and importantly the responses to – rural victimisation.

Representations of rural victimisation “The rural is evocative and familiar”, Scott and Biron (2016, p.  15) aver, “but defning it is not easy”. Much has been written about the fallacy of the existence of a so-called rural idyll (for example Harris  & Harkness, 2016; Baker, 2016) – romanticised notions of crime-free rural spaces beyond ‘the city’ – yet stereotypes of safe, secure and close-knit communities persist. Nevertheless, the ‘otherness’ of rural spaces does conversely lead to notions of the ‘rural horror’ (Scott & Biron,

Rural victims of crime in contemporary context

3

2016): of darkness and danger, manifested particularly in popular culture through television, flm and literature. In a United States context, Hayden (2021, p.  1) assesses and challenges assumptions and myths of the ‘rural primitive’, arguing that “[t]he rural primitive ft well onto an imaginary continuum of primitive to civilized, rural to urbanormative, backward- to forward-thinking, and regress versus progress”. Understanding how rural ofending and victimisation are represented matters – whether in fction, non-fction and in news reporting – but this is complicated by the yet unmet need for a universal defnition of rural (Harkness et al., 2022). Precisely defning what is ‘rural’ is no easy task, and perhaps not possible, given the vast diferences between non-urbanised places the world over (Hale, Harkness & Mulrooney, Chapter 2; Donnermeyer, Chapter 3). Measuring rural victimisation is similarly imprecise, and Rachel Hale, Alistair Harkness and Kyle J.D. Mulrooney (Chapter 2) argue that we ought to contemplate the cultural appropriateness of existing measurement tools and schema for their ability to accurately capture and refect the reality of rural victimisation. For example, victim self-reporting surveys have issues with consistency in interpretation. What constitutes ofending can difer across political boundaries, and diferent cultural contexts exist; this afects the transferability of measurement devices from one context to another. Joseph F. Donnermeyer (Chapter 3) notes that a dichotomous defnition of what is ‘rural’ – put crudely, urban versus rural – has hitherto pervaded as a well-meaning but now misguided attempt in the extant scholarship to adequately defne rurality. A simplistic binary is insufcient given the vast diferences between densely populated centres and within rural spaces. Take, for example, two areas geographically similar with an identical population size and both located a similar distance from a signifcant population centre. One is constituted of fy-in, fy-out mining workers with no embedded connection to the established local community and, because of rapid population growth, a place devoid of government and non-government support and services. The other, though, is a close-knit community made up of people who have lived and worked there over successive generations, with high discretionary incomes and where services abound. The two are incomparable: thus, we must also pay heed to geography and demography, and the way in which members of a community interact with each other. Another consideration is whether isolation is a factor that shapes our understanding of what constitutes rurality. A person’s presence in an extreme, unusual, confned or isolated environment also shapes the nature of transgressions committed. Antarctica serves as a useful example, and present are two unique features. The frst is a maxim of ‘what happens on the ice, stays on the ice’; and the second is that of a dense population because the climate dictates that people will spend most time indoors requires that diferent mechanisms be employed for dealing with ofenders, such as exclusion within for law breakers by being locked in their room and exclusion from social settings (Kaiser & White, 2023). Difculties clearly exist, too, for ensuring a proximity of distance for victims.

4

Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

Put simply, rural areas are not homogenous! The challenge, then, is to avoid generalisations as to what constitutes ‘rural’. This is important when we attempt to measure victimisation. Hale, Harkness and Mulrooney (Chapter 2) observe that, whilst conventional criminology has suggested that crime is, in essence, an urban phenomenon and that denser settlements are more crime-prone, then there may be a perception that there are less rural victims. They explore the challenges of measuring and evaluating crime victimisation in non-urban areas, including problems with non-reporting of various crime types in many rural communities (such as family violence; farm crime); the use of police discretion; and issues of familiarity. A signifcant issue for rural victims – indeed, a considerable disadvantage faced – is access to justice. We can consider ‘access’ on two levels: frst, the actual physical provision of services such as police stations, court houses and other criminal justice services and support when and where they are needed; and second, more amorphously, the delivery of justice itself, such as for the vulnerable and marginalised. As Coverdale (2016, p. 111) notes: A range of elements including gender, disability, poverty, housing and literacy singularly and in various combinations can impact a person’s capacity to gain access to justice. Of course, not only is geography a signifcant factor itself, it also compounds these factors when experienced outside of metropolitan areas. Donnermeyer in Chapter  3 unpacks what access to justice means for rural victims, arguing that understanding this might just be the most important aspect of rural criminological study into the future. Indeed, work in this space is expanding (Hale et al., 2021). Lack of access can lead to enhanced worry about crime. This worry, Vania Ceccato argues in Chapter 4, is accentuated by rurality and remoteness, and can be exacerbated by societal change such as rapid population growth, long term unemployment, lack of service provision and so on. Here again we can consider the efects of power imbalances in rural communities and the impacts of socio-structural factors such as xenophobia against the less powerful and the role of the media in magnifying levels of fear. Also important to consider is the notion of “categorical contagion”, whereby people will fear diferent types of ofending behaviours imagining them all to be committed by violent ofenders (Turanovic & Pratt, 2019, p. 128; Zimring & Hawkins, 1997).

Realities of rural victimisation Rural victimisation is very real, contemporary and persistent. The seismic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic reverberated around the globe, with scant few communities immune to either the initial rupture or the aftershocks. It brought about signifcant societal change: in the way people and communities interact; in criminal ofending behaviours and patterns; and in criminal justice responses and supports for victims of crime. Spikes in violence, for instance, occurred owing

Rural victims of crime in contemporary context

5

to families spending more time together coupled with the challenges of home schooling throughout lockdowns: here again, examples of the paucity of ‘access’ in rural settings – to victim support services and to law enforcement – manifested (Hansen & Lory, 2020). The pandemic has transformed the nature and structure of many rural communities the world over. Urban residents with second homes in rural locations ‘escaped to the country’, but, in so doing, a population spike added enormous pressure to existing amenities and services. Some fascinating work conducted in Scotland by Woof et al. (2022, p. 4) has explored the impacts on order maintenance in rural communities brought about by rapid change, fnding that the pandemic “exacerbated and magnifed existing pre-pandemic problems, particularly around (a lack of) access to service provision”. Although many might instinctively think of agricultural crime as the quintessential rural crime, as Barclay (2016) has described it, interpersonal violence ranging from assault to homicide is, as anywhere geographically, experienced in rural areas. The particular geographic and demographic circumstances of non-urban places, though, can exacerbate the likelihood of victimisation and responses to it. Examining violent victimisation through a theoretical lens, Ethan M. Rogers, Mark T. Berg, James C. Wo and William Alex Pridemore in Chapter 5 consider assault and homicide victimisation in rural public places in the United States, noting that whilst urban-derived theories of victimisation might provide guidance for rural ofending and victimisation, “there are unique aspects of rural organisation that may create particular spatial and temporal variation of rural violent victimisation that demand more attention” (Rogers et al., Chapter 5). One particular power imbalance, leading to increased levels of violence as well as worry about crime, is gender-based, and felt acutely by women at the hands of men. In Chapter 6, Walter S. DeKeseredy revisits issues of male violence against women in rural places and applying contemporary research on this scourge in the context of victimisation. A signifcant contemporary dimension of this aspect of victimisation is technological. That is, with internet access and fast broadband ever expanding beyond heavily populated areas and increasingly into the rural and remote, the ability for ‘technology-facilitated violence’ (Harris & Woodlock, 2022) has also become quite prevalent, and magnifed during the COVID-19 pandemic (UN Women, 2020; UNPFA, 2021). Signifcantly over-looked in the scholarly literature has been the plight of people with disabilities who are victimised, oftentimes by those with responsibility to provide care but also by criminal justice systems – most notably in policing and court practices, but in prisons too. People with disabilities in prisons are quite often undiagnosed prior to them entering the system as an ofender, such as is the case with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. In an Australian context, this is a particular issue for some Indigenous people, often originating from rural and remote areas, and a pertinent example of when prison might not be the best response for deterrence (see, for example, Baker, 2017). Drawing upon the persistent issue of lack of access to justice, Marg Camilleri (Chapter 7) highlights the nuanced experiences

6

Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

of people with disabilities in rural locations as they traverse the criminal justice process, observing that signifcant inequalities exist which are accentuated by communication issues. Another vulnerable section of the community are older people, and Barbara Blundell, Emily Moir and Amy Warren (Chapter 8) note that the true extent of elder abuse is incredibly difcult to ascertain, owing in large part to under-reporting of this victimisation. By far and away the most likely perpetrators of this abuse are family members. A combination of various risk factors and geographic isolation make victimisation more possible; lack of access to support and legal services and the heterogenous nature of non-urban settings make sufcient government and non-government responses less likely in rural, regional and remote locations. As with other vulnerable population groups, elder abuse rose signifcantly during the COVID-19 pandemic (WHO, 2022) owing to victims being required to stay confned with their abusers, and other factors such as pre-existing health conditions and being immuno-compromised meaning circulation in the community after stay-at-home orders were lifted was less likely (a signifcant amount of research has been conducted on elder abuse during the pandemic; see for example Yunus et al., 2021). There exist, as well, economic drivers for types of rural victimisation with ofenders being abusive to maximise profts for themselves or for a business entity. Such is the case of modern slavery, which is explored by Richard Byrne and Kreseda Smith in Chapter 9. They note that an ongoing demand for cheaper food, more consumer choice and low wages in the agriculture sector contribute to people working for others in the sector: “Whilst fnancial gain is at the heart of this exploitation, it is perpetuated through a combination of downward cost pressure in the supply chain and the involvement of transnational organised crime groups” (Byrne  & Smith, Chapter  9). The University of Nottingham Rights Lab in the United Kingdom is engaged in an ongoing suite of projects assessing the “accrued risks, impacts and mitigating responses of Covid-19 for victims and survivors of modern slavery”, in various countries and contexts (Rights Lab, 2021). A signifcant issue which Byrne and Smith highlight is that there is scant public awareness of the existence of modern slavery within the agricultural sector and the food chain more generally, a lack of consciousness that needs to change if a spotlight is to be shone on the insidious scourge of modern slavery in agriculture. Farmers, too, are often victims of crime, and acquisitive crime from farms can have far reaching social and economic impacts, although reporting rates are notoriously low. Lockdowns during the pandemic denied thieves some ofending opportunities but allowed for others: for instance, in the United Kingdom, car thieves reportedly began to focus on agricultural vehicles and machinery rather than on vehicles located in cities (Farmers Guide, 2020). In South Africa, “business closures, job losses, the weakened economy, and widespread COVID-19 infections within the police and army all helped create conditions ripe for a dramatic escalation of both opportunistic and subsistence crimes” (Phillips, 2021). Drawing upon original survey data from Slovenia, Gorazd Meško and Katja Eman (Chapter 10)

Rural victims of crime in contemporary context

7

observe that farmers often lack the resources necessary to protect their property adequately through established or emerging crime prevention interventions, leaving them vulnerable to victimisation and repeat victimisation. Findings from Slovenia have many similarities with other jurisdictions, such as in New South Wales (Mulrooney, 2021) and Victoria (Harkness, 2021) in Australia. Here, yet again, in farming communities as with other rural spaces, issues of lack of access to victim services are prevalent. Violence and aggression against diferent people and in diferent places can take many diferent forms. It is not a startling observation that ‘hate crime’ respects no geographic boundaries: it can occur in any place, at any time. What is of interest to rural criminology, though, is the geographic dimensions of rurality on the causation and experiences of hate crime and importantly responses to it. It is not possible to be at all defnitive as to whether COVID-19 sparked an increase in hate crime in rural areas – data-driven research is not yet available. However, research by Gray and Hansen (2021) in the United Kingdom (although in a metropolitan context) found that COVID-19 brought about an increase in hate crimes against people of Chinese origin (as the virus is believed to have originated in China) but such an increase was not observed with people of other ethnic backgrounds, other non-hate crimes or in any other time period. Data from Canada also indicates a doubling of ethnicity-based hate crime across the whole of the country in 2020 (CBC News, 2022). Melina Stewart-North, Rachel Hale and George Van Doorn (Chapter 11) note that hate crime victimisation can be more acutely felt in rural areas because of the magnifcation of diferences: of ethnic minorities; First Nations Peoples; LGBTQIA+ people; people with disabilities; and those who have adopted alternative subcultures. They argue that targeted eforts at the individual, institutional and socio-cultural levels is vital in reducing hate crime victimisation in rural settings. The concept of victimisation is often explored with regard to interpersonal relationships between humans, neglecting the potent impact of victimisation of non-humans and the natural and built environment. It is analysed without expanding existing notions of victimology, broadening conceptualisations of the victim or considering associated impacts resulting from victimisation. Humans are not the only target of victimisation in rural areas, and ofending cannot necessarily be attributed to an individual. Rob White (Chapter 12) considers the natural environment (fora and fauna) as a victim of the climate crisis, adopting an eco-justice perspective. Important here is to consider “the role of the State in the victimisation of rural communities and rural spaces – including by poor legislation, non-action and political malfeasance” (White, Chapter  12). Urgent transformation is needed, White argues, if rural places are not to be permanently impacted by climate change, and this can only be achieved through confrontation with the powerful in order to bring about climate justice. Louise Nicholas and Suzie Thomas (Chapter 13) adopt a zemiological approach in considering the natural and built rural environments as rural victims. A  survey conducted by Interpol with data collected from 72 countries across all world

8

Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

regions found that “[c]ultural property crime has continued unabated throughout the global COVID-19 pandemic and in some cases even surged to new heights” (Interpol, 2021). Many heritage sites were closed down and thus, in crime prevention parlance, human capable guardianship was absent, and from a law enforcement perspective police were busy attending to a multitude of other responsibilities. There exists a whole array of crime types targeted at both natural environment and cultural heritage, and the impacts can be very widely felt.

Responses to rural victimisation Existing victimological literature has consistently documented the inadequacy of governmental and criminal justice responses to victims of crime. Often, victims of crime are positioned on the periphery of processes of justice, including during the stages of police investigation and throughout the court trial. Owing to both the geographic and culture distance of rural victims, an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ mentality can exist with regards to the needs of rural victims and their level of inclusion in legislative, policy and practice initiatives which are largely developed and executed in urban-centric settings. States (across the world) are less invested in addressing issues in rural communities in comparison to the degree of commitment and resourcing that is directed towards urban crime problems. This lack of investment has obvious consequences for rural victims of crime, which are highlighted throughout chapters in this book, which engage with existing studies of the experiences of rural victim’s attempts to navigate urban-based criminal justice processes. At an individual level, the personal, and often highly emotional, sense of injustice that victims of crime may feel has the potential to lead to the pursuit of recourse through informal mechanisms rather than through formal legal processes. This is exacerbated when a victim struggles to obtain professional legal advice, representation and advocacy, a vital component of criminal justice systems. Without access to professional legal services, disadvantage and issues of equity can be magnifed. This has enormous potential impacts on rural victims of crime seeking positive justice outcomes (both in the criminal and civil jurisdictions). Hannah Haksgaard (Chapter 14) considers the critical importance of legal representation and advocacy for victims, drawing upon experiences from the United States and a shortage of rural-based lawyers. Lack of legal services can create two specifc issues. First is the issue of vigilantism and the purpose this serves for rural community members in responding to crime, including why it is a mechanism through which rural community members achieve a sense of justice in the face of actual or perceived victimisation. Second is the process of reparation of relationships between rural community members when a crime event has occurred, the importance of such and how this may be efectively achieved. The frst point of contact for most victims – at least for those who report crime – is the police, but non-reporting of victimisation is a signifcant issue for

Rural victims of crime in contemporary context

9

police. Without reports, no investigation can occur, ofenders remain undetected, and victims receive little or no justice outcomes. This is a regular fnding in various farm crime surveys (Mulrooney, 2021; Harkness, 2021). To encourage reporting, developing and maintaining trust in police is vital. This, however, is made difcult because of rural-specifc circumstances including a lack of police presence; lack of resourcing; familiarity of police and ofenders; and often traditional rather than community and problem-oriented policing styles. Danielle Watson, John Scott, Tifany Sutherland and Lamese Laponi (Chapter 15) consider the intersection of crime, rurality and the rural victim and specifc complexities. They do so with a focus on Small-Island Developing States in the Pacifc. As noted in earlier chapters, other services and support are less prevalent in rural settings, and this lack of access creates barriers to help-seeking. Shelly A. McGrath and Melencia Johnson (Chapter 16) canvass the array of such barriers, such as tyranny of distance to services, cultural and language barriers, poorer transportation options and social factors, such as fear of ramifcation in seeking help. Resourcing and appropriate training of support services are essential, they argue, if victims are to be supported. It is not all ‘doom and gloom’ for rural communities and victims within them, though. As Tarah Hodgkinson points out in Chapter 17, there are various proactive interventions which rural communities can take to improve safety, cohesion and capacity – and thus reduce the risk of crime and victimisation. She highlights a particular methodology which has been deployed in Canada and Australia with proven success, noting that ecologically and socially based neighbourhood-level responses can lead to positive change. The concluding chapter from Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness (Chapter 18) considers the nature of the rural victim, with the ultimate aim to highlight the ways in which rurality challenges normative (urban) conceptualisations of victims and victimhood. This chapter considers the characteristics of rural victims and how rurality may infuence the perceived legitimacy of their victimisation; it also identifes ways in which rural victimisation can be further theorised and examined empirically.

References Baker, D. (2016). Conclusion: The state of play. In A. Harkness, B. Harris,  & D. Baker (Eds.), Locating crime in context and place: Perspectives on regional, rural and remote Australia (pp. 171–177). Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Baker, J. (2017). The duty we owe: Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, indigenous imprisonment and Churnside v Western Australia [2016] WASCA 146. University of Western Australia Law Review, 42(2), 119–135. Barclay, E. (2016). Farm victimisation: The quintessential rural crime. In J. F. Donnermeyer (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of rural criminology (pp.  107–115). London: Routledge. CBC News. (2022, March 17). B.C. had the highest rate of hate crimes in the country during frst year of COVID-19 pandemic. CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/ news/canada/british-columbia/bc-hate-crime-statistics-1.6388519

10

Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

Ceccato, V. (2016). Rural crime and community safety. London: Routledge. Ceccato, V. (2022). Fifteen reasons to care about rural crime and safety. In M. Bowden & A. Harkness (Eds.), Rural transformation and rural crime: International critical perspectives in rural criminology. Bristol: Bristol University Press. Coverdale, R. (2016). Accessing justice in regional Australia: Evolving perspectives and contexts. In A. Harkness, B. Harris, & D. Baker (Eds.), Locating crime in context and place: Perspectives on regional, rural and remote Australia (pp. 108–119). Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Farmers Guide. (2020, April 6). Police report spike in rural crime during Covid-19 crisis. Retrieved from https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/police-report-spike-in-rural-crime-during-covid19-crisis/ Gray, C., & Hansen, K. (2021). Did covid-19 lead to an increase in hate crime toward Chinese people in London? Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 37(4), 569–588. Hale, R., Stewart-North, M., & Harkness, A. (2021). Post-disaster access to justice: The road ahead for Australian rural communities. In A. Harkness & R. White (Eds.), Crossroads of rural crime: Representations and realities of transgression in the Australian countryside (pp. 167–179). Bingley: Emerald. Hansen, J. A., & Lory, G. L. (2020). Rural victimization and policing during the COVID19 pandemic. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 731–742. Harkness, A. (2021). Victorian farm crime survey. Armidale, NSW: The Centre for Rural Criminology, University of New England. Retrieved from https://express.adobe.com/ page/H4jeQ3vvA7bsO/ Harkness, A., Bowden, M., & Donnermeyer, J. (2022). The future for rural criminology: Transcendence and transformation of borders. In M. Bowden  & A. Harkness (Eds.), Rural transformation and rural crime: International critical perspectives in rural criminology. Bristol: Bristol University Press. Harkness, A., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (2022). Why we should care about rural crime. Feature essay. Rurality, Crime and Society, 3(1). Retrieved from https://ruralitycrimeandsociety. org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Rurality-Crime-and-Society-V3-I1.pdf Harris, B.,  & Harkness, A. (2016). Introduction: Locating regional, rural and remote crime in theoretical and contemporary context. In A. Harkness, B. Harris, & D. Baker (Eds.), Locating crime in context and place: Perspectives on regional, rural and remote Australia (pp. 1–12). Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Harris, B., & Woodlock, D. (2022). Spaceless violence: Women’s experiences of technologyfacilitated domestic violence in regional, rural and remote areas. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 644. Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved from https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi644 Hayden, K. E. (2021). The rural primitive in American popular culture: All too familiar. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Hodgkinson, T., & Harkness, A. (2020). Introduction: Rural crime prevention in theory and context. In A. Harkness (Ed.), Rural crime prevention: Theory, tactics and techniques (pp. 1–16). London: Routledge. INTERPOL. (2021, October 18). Cultural property crime thrives throughout pandemic says new INTERPOL survey. INTERPOL. Retrieved from https://www.interpol. int/en/News-and-Events/News/2021/Cultural-property-crime-thrives-throughoutpandemic-says-new-INTERPOL-survey Kaiser, R., & White, R. (2023). Antarctica. In A. Harkness, C. Peterson, M. Bowden, C. Pedersen, & J. F. Donnermeyer (Eds.), Encyclopedia of rural crime. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

Rural victims of crime in contemporary context

11

Kennedy, A. J., Brumby, S. A., Versace, V. L.,  & Brumby-Rendell, T. (2020). The ripple efect: A  digital intervention to reduce suicide stigma among farming me. BMC Public Health, 20(813). Retrieved from https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/ articles/10.1186/s12889-020-08954-5 Mulrooney, K. J. D. (2021). The NSW farm crime survey 2020. The Centre for Rural Criminology, University of New England. Retrieved from https://spark.adobe.com/page/ zsV05pknxXl7N/ Phillips, L. (2021, January  28). COVID-19 lockdown triggers rise in rural crime. Farmer’s Weekly. Retrieved from https://www.farmersweekly.co.za/agri-news/coronavirus/ covid-19-lockdown-triggers-rise-in-rural-crime/ Rights Lab. (2021, April). Rights lab covid-19 research and evidence. The University of Nottingham. Retrieved from https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/beacons-of-excellence/ rights-lab/covid-19/rights-lab-covid-19-research-and-evidence.aspx Scott, J.,  & Biron, D. (2016). An interpretive approach to understanding crime in rural Australia. In A. Harkness, B. Harris, & D. Baker (Eds.), Locating crime in context and place: Perspectives on regional, rural and remote Australia (pp. 14–24). Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Smith, K. (2020). Desolation in the countryside: How agricultural crime impacts the mental health of British farmers. Journal of Rural Studies, 80, 522–531. Turanovic, J. J., & Pratt, T. C. (2019). Thinking about victimization: Context and consequences. London: Routledge. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). (2021, December 1). Technology-facilitated gender-based violence: Making all spaces safe. UNFPA. Retreived from https://www. unfpa.org/publications/technology-facilitated-gender-based-violence-making-allspaces-safe UN Women. (2020). Online and ICT facilitated violence against women and girls during COVID-19. UN Women Headquarters. Retrieved from https://www.unwomen. org/en/digital-library/publications/2020/04/brief-online-and-ict-facilitated-violenceagainst-women-and-girls-during-covid-19 Woof, A., Horgan, S.,  & Tatnell, A. (2022). Pluralised responses to policing the Pandemic: Analysing the emergence of informal order maintenance strategies, the changing ‘policing web’, and the impacts of COVID-19 in rural communities (A report in interim fndings). Edinburgh: Edinburgh Napier University. Retrieved from https://www.napier.ac.uk/~/media/ worktribe/output-2825442/pluralised-responses-to-policing-the-pandemic-analysingthe-emergence-of-informal-order WHO (World Health Organization). (2022, October 4). Elder abuse [fact sheet]. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/elder-abuse Yunus, R. M., Abdullah, N. N., & Firdaus, M. A. M. (2021). Elder abuse and neglect in the midst of COVID-19. Journal of Global Health, 11. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.11. 03122 Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1997). Crime is not the problem: Lethal violence in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

PART I

Representations

2 MEASURING AND RESEARCHING RURAL VICTIMISATION Rachel Hale, Alistair Harkness and Kyle J.D. Mulrooney

Capturing the nature and prevalence of victimisation is a difcult task fraught with limitations, constraints and challenges – regardless of place-based considerations. Generating an accurate measure of victimisation is increasingly difcult in the rural context owing to issues of under- and non-reporting, as well as policing styles adopted in more insular and close-knit communities. This chapter considers the limitations of current measures of victimisation applied to the rural context, including the constraints when utilising dominant existing tools and mechanisms, such as police reported statistics and victim self-report surveys. The task is further complicated by disparate defnitions of the term ‘rural’, which limits cross-national comparisons. Criminological research has predominantly focused on the ofender and their experience with ofending and the criminal justice system at the relative neglect of victims’ standpoints. Research methods texts for criminology are copious; however, scholarship relating to research methods in victimology are relatively less abundant, particularly so for rural victimological research. This chapter provides an overview of the key considerations when conducting research on rural victimisation, including the paramount need to ensure the safety of the victim through an understanding of their unique positionality as a rural citizen. For the urban researcher who may be unfamiliar with the rural setting, this chapter provides an insight into the key considerations required when embarking on the endeavour of researching victimisation in rural communities. Several strategies to address these considerations and overcome identifed challenges are outlined with a view to optimise the involvement of rural victims in the research process to capture their lived realities in an ethical, safe and considerate manner.

Measuring rural victimisation It is critical that rural victimisation is accurately measured to reliably inform legislation, policy and service delivery, and to ensure that responses are appropriately DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-3

16

Rachel Hale, Alistair Harkness and Kyle J.D. Mulrooney

targeted to the unique needs of rural victims and communities. The challenges and limitations surrounding the measurement of crime and victimisation, generally, have been well documented in the criminological literature (for example Addington, 2011), and this is especially so for measuring perceptions of the seriousness of crime (Stylianou, 2003). Sources of crime data can vary on many diferent levels and for a number of valid reasons. Ultimately, though, the choice of which data source is used should be an informed decision made by the user based on an understanding of the purpose of the data source and the methodology behind it. Both victimisation survey data and police recorded crime data contribute to informing users about the nature and extent of crime victimisation. Data from victimisation surveys can be used to contextualise information from the police recorded crime data. Neither administrative statistics nor victimisation surveys alone can provide comprehensive information about crime: each is useful for addressing specifc issues. Even within a particular method of data collection (such as survey or administrative data) there are diferences between collections. Even though there has been comparative international consideration of crime victim surveys (such as van Kesteren et al., 2013), the extent to which issues of crime victimisation measurement are afected by the rural context is relatively under-explored. Consideration is given here to the ways in which the issues surrounding measurement of victimisation, generally, are amplifed by rurality, as well as the unique issues which originate from the rural context and impact the ability to accurately measure rural crime victimisation.

Complexities of current measures of rural victimisation Three common methods of data collection on victimisation are: (i) police recorded statistics; (ii) victim surveys; and (iii) victim studies. Each bear their own respective benefts and limitations, which have been well documented, although primarily for their application in urban settings. Police recorded measures of victimisation are only as good as the data which police hold on crime, which is reliant on reporting practices. Issues of non-reporting, under-reporting and under-policing have an impact on the accuracy of police reported data on crime and victimisation, as they generate a ‘dark fgure of crime’ – that which is not reported or detected and therefore unknown. In rural communities, these issues are amplifed owing to the unique socio-cultural nature of rural places wherein there is relatively higher acquaintance density and diferent policing styles adopted. The relationship between police and community members impacts directly on crime measurement because it afects citizen reporting practices as well as police responses to reports received – two diferent but interconnected issues. Regarding victim reporting, in some rural areas, a ‘culture of silence’ has been found to exist, wherein residents may choose not to report to police (Smith, 2010). Meško (2020) explains that this is due to rural areas having relatively higher levels of informal social control, which can reduce the willingness to report crimes and to engage police as a primary response to victimisation.

Measuring and researching rural victimisation

17

Owing to the close-knit nature of some rural communities, police, victims and perpetrators are likely known to one another, a factor which can impact both the likelihood of reports being made to police and of police acting on those reports. For example, a victim may not feel comfortable or confdent reporting to a police ofcer if they have a pre-existing relationship. In instances of intimate partner violence, victim/survivors may not report for fear of the repercussions if that information were shared by the police with the perpetrator, which may occur if they are acquainted or related. Police responses to reports of victimisation also impact reporting behaviour. In rural areas, as with urban ones, if reports are not handled appropriately by responding police, then the victim may be deterred from reporting in the future. There is a risk that the report may not be acted on by the ofcer receiving the report due to a confict of interest when the ofcer knows the perpetrator. Further, victims who are already stigmatised, such as those from minority groups, may not report to police in a rural area as they risk further othering and marginalisation (Garland & Chakraborti, 2006). In some rural communities in remote Australia, a lack of a permanent police presence and under-policing of domestic violence in private spaces is a factor whilst First Nations peoples in public spaces are over-policed (Yarwood, 2007) In some remote parts of the world, there may not exist formal mechanisms for reporting of crime, or where they do exist, they may be characterised by corruption, wherein the state has a stake in non-reporting of crime. In Venezuela, for instance, public perceptions of police corruption and subsequent distrust in law enforcement (Marek, 2013) will impact signifcantly on reporting rates. Even where there are no deliberate attempts to preclude reporting, geographic and resourcing factors can contribute to non-reporting. For instance, because the population of the Solomon Islands is scattered across an archipelago, access to legal, government, non-government and police resources is eminently difcult – if not impossible – for many residents. Indeed, a 2013 World Bank report noted that “[m] ore often than not, afected citizens are left without remedy” from justice agencies (The World Bank, 2013; Allen et al., 2013). The report (The World Bank, 2013) noted that 80 percent of the population live outside the capital Honiara and that: One of the most telling fndings from the research is just how tenuous a connection the present day state has to rural communities. This is defnitely the case in relation to the police and courts which, in part because of their absence, are largely marginal to the majority of the population. In war torn and extremely remote areas, the reality of victimisation becomes almost invisible to the outside world owing to the challenges permeating these sites to obtain an accurate insight into the extent of victimisation. In rural and remote communities where media reporting is limited or censured, there may not exist a ‘newspaper of record’ or fourth estate to provide a form of oversight by reporting on the reality of victimisation.

18

Rachel Hale, Alistair Harkness and Kyle J.D. Mulrooney

A lack of police presence or distrust in police can lead to informal, non-statebased mechanisms for crime control. Such is the case in the Mexican state of Michoacán “where armed civilian groups have sprung up to protect their communities from the criminal violence embodied by the Knights Templar” (Álvarez Rodríguez et al., 2020, p. 84). In an Australian study of farm crime, indicating a reluctance to take formal steps to responding to victimisation, one farmer laconically observed that “We kill our own snakes in the bush” (Harkness, 2016, p. 104). Another example, also from Australia, comes from the small community of Lightning Ridge in New South Wales, renowned for opal mining as well as irregular police presence and a lack of trust in police. Here victims of thefts from their opal mines will often resort to informal measures of responding to crime, often through the use of myths and rumours to deter further ofending, such as perpetuating a narrative of the disappearance of or physical harm to ofenders over decades past (De Jong, 2021). Police generated data is also limited to capturing what is legally defned as a crime at the exclusion of other behaviours which may be just as harmful but do not fall under a criminal code. Examples include behaviour constituting coercive control in the context of violence against women, which may not be criminalised in all areas, as well as harms perpetrated against non-human entities such as animals, cultural and archaeological sites and the natural environment. In this sense, police crime statistics may also ignore rural specifc crime types, ofence categories and rural nuances. For example, quintessential rural crime such as stock-theft or the theft of farm machinery may be recorded more simply and broadly as theft of property with a certain fscal value. As a result, we are unable to determine the nature and extent of these crimes more specifcally because they are lumped together. Another issue that impacts on police generated data more broadly is the reporting of crime, or lack thereof. Victimisation studies help shore this up by providing information on crime which has not been reported to the police or is not properly captured in ofcial statistics, shining light on the signifcant dark fgure of crime. Victimisation studies conducted in rural Australia and focused on farm crime reveal very high levels of victimisation among farmers. For instance, a farm crime survey conducted in New South Wales found that 81 percent of farmers reported being a victim of farm crime (Mulrooney, 2021). This refects similar fndings from previous surveys conducted in New South Wales and Victoria (Barclay & Donnermeyer, 2002; Harkness, 2021). Despite this victimisation, farmers are often reluctant to report crime and this varies considerably by the ofence they experience. For example, in the New South Wales farm crime survey, despite being the primary ofences experienced by farmers, both trespassing (34%) and illegal shooting (31%) were reported at least once only a third of the time. The theft of livestock was reported at least once only 44 percent of the time, despite the value and loss often associated with this crime (Mulrooney, 2021). Research indicates that those who have been previously victimised tend to have less confdence in the police and the criminal justice system (Hough et al., 2013; Berthelot et al., 2018; Singer et al., 2019); greater levels of fear of crime; and are less likely to report crime. Importantly, these factors interact.

Measuring and researching rural victimisation

19

The impact of crime on Australian farmers and other rural property owners is signifcant psychologically and fnancially, and there are direct and broader social and economic implications. One aspect, often overlooked, is how such victimisation shapes perceptions of crime which in turn may have serious personal and social consequences. Alongside these high levels of victimisation among farmers, we also fnd signifcant worry about crime. Most farmers believe that crime in New South Wales had risen ‘a lot more’ over the period 2018–2020, and most farmers tended to classify crime in their local area as serious (Mulrooney, 2021). Sixty-four percent of farmers indicated they were worried about crime in general. Respondents were most worried about trespassing (82%), break and enter (74%), the theft of livestock (72%) and illegal shooting/hunting (66%) (Mulrooney, 2021). Excessive worry about crime can impact on an individual’s quality of life through stress, physiological efects and negative psychological well-being. While attention tends to be placed on crime itself, we need also to better understand worry about crime in rural spaces and how this is shaped by location and cultural context.

Operationalising ‘rural’ for comparative analysis There is no standardised, agreed defnition of what constitutes ‘rural’. Whilst there are certainly some factors which are established as refecting a rural environment, such as whether it is geographically isolated, removed from urban centres or has a low population and density (see Harris & Harkness, 2016), there is still variation across countries as to what constitutes a rural place. Qi (2022) explains how rapid urbanisation has led to townships previously categorised as rural becoming recategorised as urban or suburban, even though they maintain the characteristics of a rural place. If the new administrative categorisation is adopted, then these places become excluded from measurement and research (Qi, 2022). Because of diferences in how the term ‘rural’ is defned, there can be signifcant diferences in the fndings about victimisation from one country to another, such as whether certain forms of victimisation are higher or lower in rural compared to urban areas (Rennison & Powers Mondragon, 2022). Reliable comparisons of rural victimisation across countries are difcult to make, primarily owing to the lack of a clear consistent operationalised defnition of the rural (DuBois et al., 2019). Understanding how ‘rural’ has been defned in existing research highlights this issue. Rennison and Powers Mondragon (2022, p. 3) reviewed several publications fnding that “most research relies on standardized federal defnitions and measurement of rural” which signifcantly difer across place. In some contexts, there was no insight into how rural had been conceptualised which was deemed unhelpful; where an explanation was provided this was deemed useful in enabling an understanding of how rural had been defned to determine if comparison is viable or appropriate. What constitutes rural in one part of the world may not ft the defnition in another, and therefore it is important to disclose the unit of measure or defnition adopted in each instance.

20

Rachel Hale, Alistair Harkness and Kyle J.D. Mulrooney

Owing to these disparities, it is unlikely that any truly reliable comparison of victimisation statistics (such as rates and prevalence) can be made universally across the globe. Where comparison is made based on disparate defnitions, this has the potential to limit the extent to which a reliable global body of knowledge on rural victimisation can be developed (Rennison & Powers Mondragon, 2022). In fact, it may never be possible to overcome this issue, owing to the heterogenous nature of rural places whereby “there can be no single defnition that adequately measures the multidimensional concept of rural” (Rennison & Powers Mondragon, 2022, p. 12). This highlights the importance of rich qualitative methods for exploring rural victimisation in which the nuances of rural spaces can be unpacked and contextualised, allowing not only for more accurate comparative analyses but also for greater insight into the realities of rural communities and the victimisation that occurs within them.

Researching rural victimisation Given the limitations with police recorded data and victim surveys, it is advantageous to engage with victims directly through well thought out research approaches which seek to attain an in-depth understanding of victim perspectives. This refers to qualitative methods of data collection such as in-depth interviews or focus groups with victims about their experience. The micro-level focus of qualitative research makes it ideal for researching in the localised rural context (Meško  & Hacin, 2022). When engaging victims as participants in this type of research, there are important and unique issues and challenges that must be carefully considered and ideally mitigated so as not to re-traumatise individuals through the research process and to optimise the research experience for both victim and researcher. Researchers themselves need to be cognisant of impacts on themselves, particularly when examining violent crime (Fohring, 2020).

Key considerations when researching rural victimisation Regardless of location, recruitment of victims of crime for research is a universal challenge. This is particularly so in relation to victims of specifc harms such as violent and sexual crimes (Ellard-Gray et al., 2015). Victims of these particularly heinous forms of harm may understandably be reluctant to share their experiences for fear of negative repercussions from the perpetrator or community judgement (Qi, 2022). For victims of intimate partner violence, involvement in research could threaten their livelihood if the perpetrator were to fnd out. For victims who identify as LGBTIQA+, their involvement in research may reveal their sexual orientation and/or gender identity to other community members. Victims may also be concerned about the social implications, such as backlash for involvement in research if the subject matter is politically or religiously controversial in nature. In rural communities, these concerns may be amplifed further, along with the actual risk of these repercussions eventuating, owing to the small geographic

Measuring and researching rural victimisation

21

vicinity of some rural places, as well as their close-knit nature, wherein privacy, and therefore anonymity, is challenging to maintain. Researchers seeking to involve victims of crime in research must therefore consider the unique position of victims living in rural communities and appreciate their concerns about participation. A paramount consideration of research with victims of crime is that their participation should not cause them further harm. Beyond social and safety concerns, victims may be reluctant to participate in research for fear of the distress they may experience upon re-telling their experience. Even if the individual does not selfidentify this concern, the researcher has a duty to consider this. In Australia, for example, the National Statement of Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC, 2007) outlines the harms that research participants may experience including psychological harms (such as distress) and social harms (such as reputational damage). It is the duty of the researcher to acknowledge these potential harms and outline how they will be mitigated to satisfy human research ethics requirements. The ways in which these harms are mitigated in rural areas will difer from urban ones. Take for example the strategy to mitigate psychological harm by informing participants of available services in their local area should they need to access support during or after an interview. In rural locations, mental health support is generally relatively limited; tailored support services for victims of crime even more so. If the researcher is to ofer this as a mitigation strategy, they should ensure that adequate services are truly available (and accessible) to the rural participant. A lack of resources in rural communities also becomes a key consideration when deciding on the method of data collection to be used in rural research. The low socio-economic status of some rural communities means that it is more common for residents not to own a computer. The geographic remoteness of rural places can also impact internet availability and connectivity (Smith, 2020). This should be considered if online data collection methods are planned which may exclude some rural citizens from participating. Phone surveys or interviews may be a suitable alternative, but in some cases may not be viable due to barriers accessing telecommunications. Considering these access barriers, the collection of data on-site in rural places may be the most ftting or preferred option. This could include visiting rural communities to distribute paper surveys, conduct interviews or focus groups, and collect records. The beneft of conducting research about rural communities within rural communities for the urban-based researcher is that they become familiar with the unique setting of rural spaces, which can only serve to enrich their understanding of the realities of rurality. When planning in-person data collection in rural locations, there are several key considerations that the researcher must grapple with before heading out to conduct feldwork (Peterson, 2022). A primary consideration is the availability of resources to enable the researcher to undertake work from a rural location. Poor to no internet connectivity can limit the researcher’s ability to access online platforms, such as cloud storage and emails, meaning that they cannot access soft copies of their research materials. Preparedness is critical then, such as printing hard copies ahead

22

Rachel Hale, Alistair Harkness and Kyle J.D. Mulrooney

of time. In research involving rural victims of crime, the researcher should not assume the participant will have ready access to digital copies of the information statement which typically contains the details of local support services, therefore providing a hard copy of this information at the interview would be benefcial. Preparing the route to travel to rural areas is also wise being mindful that GPS technology does not always refect rural roads which may be discontinued, farm or private roads (Peterson, 2022). Another paramount consideration is the availability of suitable spaces to conduct face-to-face data collection. The researcher should consider whether private spaces are available and accessible, and whether they provide the level of anonymity required when conducting research in a small rural town. The latter consideration is critical to research with rural victims of crime, where the risk of known involvement in research can jeopardise a participant’s wellbeing and safety. These considerations are not as essential in urban areas where there is an abundance of diferent spaces in which interviews or focus groups can be held (such as cafés, ofce buildings, universities, shopping malls and so on). It may be that the researcher visits the rural location frst to scope out what is available: however, considerable geographic distance could make this unfeasible. Instead, the researcher could access an online map of the rural place to survey the space ahead of time and identify a suitable location (mindful that online maps may not be an accurate representation of the current infrastructure). Another option may be to contact a local victim support agency to request a suitable space to conduct the feldwork, if available (noting the relative under-resourcing of rural services might make this impractical). Whatever the method, it is critical to identify a suitable space for the research to take place, always positioning the victims’ welfare and safety as central. If it is deemed too risky, then the research may need to occur outside of a participant’s town of residence (Peterson, 2022). To conduct research efectively within rural settings, it is important that the researcher plans for this and understands the unique requirements (Peterson, 2022), particularly if they come from an urban location, because a rural backdrop will be unfamiliar and unlike an urban research setting. For rural researchers conducting research within their own community, whilst the process may be easier for them because of their familiarity with the community (Meško & Hacin, 2022), it may also decrease their objectivity and lead to a confict of interest or potential blurring of professional boundaries. Being mindful of and managing this confict efectively is critical to ensure the integrity and objectivity of data collection. Therefore, regardless of whether the researcher originates from a rural or urban community, there are important considerations when researching rural victims of crime that must be carefully considered.

Challenges of conducting research in rural areas The geographic remoteness and unique socio-cultural context of rural places can present unique challenges to researchers performing research on, in or with rural

Measuring and researching rural victimisation

23

communities. The lack of access to online methods of participation may necessitate travel to rural places to conduct research. Travelling extensive distances can be costly, and this may be a challenge for researchers who do not have institutional funding to support this endeavour. It can also be mentally and physically taxing, and the researcher should factor in frequent stops or overnight accommodation to ensure their health and safety, which again adds cost to the venture (Peterson, 2022). In extremely remote areas of the world, it may be relatively unsafe to traverse the remote landscape, and the researcher should consider the inherent risks and develop appropriate mitigation measures when undertaking rural feldwork (People Safe, 2020). These factors make researching in rural places, whilst an important activity, a relatively challenging one. One of the most signifcant identifed challenges with researching in rural areas is access to the community to obtain the information the researcher desires (Peterson, 2022). Researching in rural communities that are highly insular may be diffcult owing to the researcher’s ‘outsider’ status. Rural citizens may be suspicious of outsiders and their agenda and be more trusting of people from within their own community (Meško  & Hacin, 2022). For the researcher to gain the trust of the community to access data or to speak with community members it is critical they build rapport, which is particularly important with victims of crime who may be especially reluctant to participate. Gaining ‘insider’ status is not easy: this can be time consuming and challenging, but it is critical. Meško and Hacin (2022, p. 120) refer to this process as ‘preparing the feld’ of research by becoming “acquainted with the local population” and building “informal relations with residents”. This might look like gaining access through key gatekeepers in the community (such as respected community members), gaining trust of community members, and learning the customs of the local community – the unwritten ‘rules’ or norms which community members adhere to and which signify insider status. Another approach to overcome the challenges and barriers of conducting research on rural victims is through the adoption of community-based, participatory research designs. This may involve rural citizens co-designing and co-producing the research through a community-engaged approach. In a researchto-practice fellowship project for the Centre for Victim Research, United States, such an approach led to fndings that could meaningfully inform service delivery for victims of crime in a rural community (de Heer et al., 2019). In researching mobile victim advocacy units in rural Coconino County, Arizona, United States, the researchers engaged local advocates who worked in remote communities to assist in developing survey questions that could capture the needs of local victims. This facilitated the design of a culturally appropriate tool comprised of “specifc questions for those that identify as Native American, which were pilot tested on Native American community members” (p. 3). The team reported challenges with low response rates due to the issues outlined earlier in this section, attempting to mitigate this by using multiple formats of survey dissemination. This included the team visiting one of the communities – Page – four times in two months to

24

Rachel Hale, Alistair Harkness and Kyle J.D. Mulrooney

gather data by “attending community meetings, outreach events, Native American Chapter House meetings, and highly populated locations within Page such as the emergency room, public library, and urgent care facilities” (p. 4). They recommend that “future victim research should consider their specifc communities and individuals within, so they are best measuring and sampling appropriately rather than just adopting a more generic needs assessment survey used elsewhere” (p. 6). The highly collaborative nature of this approach represents a mechanism to capture the voices of rural and remote victims who would otherwise remain unheard.

Conclusion Capturing the reality of rural victimisation is no mean feat. However, it is undeniably crucial to accurately measure and research rural victimisation for it to be prevented and responded to efectively. There are endless considerations and challenges when measuring and researching rural victimisation which require careful consideration and tailored responses. The issues surrounding victimisation measurement in the rural context require attention to ensure that the dark fgure of rural crime (and thus victimisation) is reduced as far as is possible, enabling an accurate refection of the true extent of rural victimisation to drive legislative, policy and service responses. This includes improving avenues for the reporting of rural victimisation so that victims feel comfortable knowing their matter will be appropriately followed up. It is also important that those researching in rural spaces actively share their insights and learnings to grow the body of knowledge on the conduct of rural research, particularly regarding rural victim studies, which is complex and challenging regardless of place and made increasingly more difcult by the geographic and sociocultural nuances of ‘the rural’.

References Addington, L. A. (2011). Measuring crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Allen, M., Dinnen, S., Evans, D.,  & Monson, R. (2013). Justice delivered locally: Systems, challenges, and innovations in Solomon Islands (Report No. 81299). World Bank. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/16678 Álvarez Rodríguez, I., Román-Burgos, D.,  & Jesperson, S. (2020). Armed legitimacy in Mexico: Self-defence groups against political violence. In A. Harkness (Ed.), Rural crime prevention: Theory, tactics and techniques (pp. 84–94). London: Routledge. Barclay, E., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (2002). Property crime and crime prevention on farms in Australia. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 4, 47–61. De Heer, B., Jones, L., Runge, J., & Patton, S. Y. (2019, August). Supporting rural, remote, and underserved survivors: The need for mobile victim advocacy units – A research-to practice fellowship project. Center for Victim Research. Retrieved from https://ncvc.dspacedirect. org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11990/1559/R2P%20Fellowships%202019_NAU-VWS_ Final%20Report_CVR%20.pdf De Jong, M. C. (2021). Informal social crime controls in an Australian opal mining community. Unpublished honours thesis. Armidale, NSW: University of New England.

Measuring and researching rural victimisation

25

DuBois, K. O., Rennison, C. M., & DeKeseredy, W. S. (2019). Intimate partner violence in small towns, dispersed rural areas, and other locations: Estimates using a reconception of settlement type. Rural Sociology, 1–27. Ellard-Gray, A., Jefrey, N. K., Choubak, M., & Crann, S. E. (2015). Finding the hidden participant: Solutions for recruiting hidden, hard-to-reach, and vulnerable populations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5), 1–10. Fohring, S. (2020). The risks and rewards of researching victims of crime. Methodological Innovations, 13(2). Garland, J., & Chakraborti, N. (2006). Recognising and responding to victims of rural racism. International Review of Victimology, 13(1), 49–69. Harkness, A. (2016). Farm crime: The forgotten frontier? In A. Harkness, B. Harris,  & D. Baker (Eds.), Locating crime in context and place: Perspectives on regional, rural and remote Australia (pp. 96–107). Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Harkness, A. (2021). Victorian farm crime survey. Armidale, NSW: The Centre for Rural Criminology, University of New England. Retrieved from https://express.adobe.com/ page/H4jeQ3vvA7bsO/ Harris, B., & Harkness, A. (2016). Locating regional, rural and remote crime in theoretical and contemporary context. In A. Harkness, B. Harris, & D. Baker (Eds.), Locating crime in context and place: Perspectives on regional, rural and remote Australia (pp. 1–12). Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Hough, M., Bradford, B., Jackson, J., & Roberts, J. R. (2013). Attitudes to sentencing and trust in justice: Exploring trends from the crime survey for England and Wales. London: Ministry of Justice analytical Series, Ministry of Justice. Marek, J. (2013). The public perception of police corruption in Venezuela and its efect in national government. Revista Sul-Americana de Ciência Política, 1(3), 1–21. Meško, G. (2020). Rural criminology – A challenge for the future. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 28(1), 3–13. Meško, G., & Hacin, R. (2022). Focus groups: The challenges and advantages of creating and using focus groups in rural areas? In R. Weisheit, J. R. Peterson, & A. Pytlarz (Eds.), Research methods for rural criminologists. London: Routledge. Mulrooney, K. J. D. (2021). The NSW farm crime survey 2020. The Centre for Rural Criminology, University of New England. Retrieved from https://spark.adobe.com/page/ zsV05pknxXl7N/ National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). (2007 [2018]). National statement of ethical conduct in human research. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government. Retrieved from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethicalconduct-human-research-2007-updated-2018 People Safe. (2020). Health and safety risks when working in remote areas. Retrieved from https:// peoplesafe.co.uk/blogs/health-and-safety-risks-when-working-in-remote-areas/ Peterson, J. R. (2022). Gaining access to rural communities. In R. Weisheit, J. R. Peterson, & A. Pytlarz (Eds.), Research methods for rural criminologists. London: Routledge. Qi, Z. (2022). Going global: The challenges of studying rural crime worldwide. In R. Weisheit, J. R. Peterson, & A. Pytlarz (Eds.), Research methods for rural criminologists. London: Routledge. Rennison, C. M., & Powers Mondragon, H. (2022). Defning rural. In R. Weisheit, J. R. Peterson, & A. Pytlarz (Eds.), Research methods for rural criminologists. London: Routledge. Singer, A. J., Choury, C., Lehmann, P. S., Walzak, J. N., Gertz, M., & Biglin, S. (2019). Victimization, fear of crime, and trust in criminal justice institutions: A cross-national analysis. Crime and Delinquency, 65(6), 822–844.

26

Rachel Hale, Alistair Harkness and Kyle J.D. Mulrooney

Smith, R. (2010). Policing the changing landscape of rural crime: A case study from Scotland. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 12(3), 373–387. Smith, N. (2020). Social media, rural communities and crime prevention. In A. Harkness (Ed.), Rural crime prevention: Theory, tactic and techniques (pp. 73–83). London: Routledge. Stylianou, S. (2003). Measuring crime seriousness perceptions: What have we learned and what else do we want to know. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(1), 37–56. van Kesteren, J., van Dijk, J., & Mayhew, P. (2013). The international crime victims surveys: A retrospective. International Review of Victimology, 20(1), 49–69. World Bank. (2013, October 18). Pursuing justice in rural Solomon Islands. Feature Story. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/10/18/pursuingjustice-in-rural-solomon-islands Yarwood, R. (2007). Getting just deserts? Policing, governance and rurality in Western Australia. Geoforum, 38(2), 339–352.

3 ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR RURAL VICTIMS Joseph F. Donnermeyer

In the book Rural crime prevention: Theory, tactics and techniques, a chapter titled ‘Social justice and problematising the concept of “rural”’ (Donnermeyer, 2020, p. 27) concluded that: “As the world urbanises, as surely it will, access to justice is perhaps the biggest issue facing rural peoples”. Further, a focus on access to justice moves beyond comparisons of rural versus urban rates of crime (Wells & Weisheit, 2012) and comparisons of crime across various kinds of rural communities (Jobes et  al., 2004, 2005), whether those studies leaned primarily on statistical data or qualitative evidence. The purpose of this chapter is to elaborate on the concept of access to justice and its implications for scholarly considerations of rural victims (Donnermeyer, 2020). It begins by attempting to defne the words ‘rural’, ‘crime’, ‘victims’, ‘harm’, ‘access’ and ‘justice’, providing relevant context for readers of this collection, particularly those who may be unfamiliar with criminological scholarship. It then proceeds to discuss two primary types of access to justice under which specifc examples can be categorised.

What is rural? Attempts to defne exactly what is meant by the word ‘rural’ have already been written about many times over by Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy (2014), Donnermeyer (2020), DeKeseredy, (2021), Hayden (2021) and a great number of other scholars. Most of the recent defnitional narratives about the word ‘rural’ share three common traits. First, they uniformly bemoan the criminological neglect of rural through much of the twentieth century, which included poorly constructed stereotypes of what rural means when compared to what urban means. Inevitably, these criticisms thumped dichotomies, such as the famous but hackneyed gemeinschaft-gesellschaft polarity frst made famous by the nineteenth century sociological theorist

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-4

28

Joseph F. Donnermeyer

Ferdinand Tönnies (1955). Translated to English, it means “community” and “society”, whose meanings were twisted to the extent that the two words became synonymous with “rural” and “urban”. This dichotomy actually describes two polar types of human will and the relationship of human will to crime. In the case of gemeinschaft, it is wesenville or human will integrated into social groups, while gesellschaft is related to kürwille or human will related to an individual belonging to a social group in order to obtain an individualized or personal goal. The former, according to Tönnies, is more likely associated with violent crime, whilst the latter to acquisitive crime (Defem, 1999). Hence, the use of gemeinschaft to mean a rural locality without crime is beyond a 180-degree twist in the meaning. Second, these rural scholars recognised the limitations imposed on rural crime research by government-based defnitions of rural and urban in various databases, such as found in the United States with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report and the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey. However valuable are various data sources for examining rural crime, the organisation of the data is invariably based on rough-hewn categories that fail to recognise the variability of social, cultural and economic characteristics of rural places. Third, contemporary rural criminological critics point out the extreme challenge of defning rural in such a generalised way as to be useful for comparative international work. Governments and scholars around the world mostly conduct their theoretical and research work based on and limited by defnitions that are country-specifc, and usually accompanied by the frst two defnitional faux-pas as well. Perhaps one way to solve this defnitional issue, at least partially, is to strip what is meant by rural to its basics. Those basics would include the adjectives ‘small’ and ‘low’; that is, rural can be defned as places with ‘small’ populations and/ or ‘low’ population densities that are not contiguous to larger places. No other characteristic is essential to defning rural; that is, as an intrinsic trait common to what rural places around the world look like and who lives at those places, except population size and/or density. It is frequently claimed that rural places display high levels of social cohesion among its members, and that the people who live there are more likely to know each other, that is, display a greater density of acquaintanceship (Freudenburg, 1986). That may be true to a certain degree, but even though both cohesion and density of acquaintanceship are correlated characteristics of rural places, they are not necessary in order to defne the word ‘rural’ for a global consideration. Even an attempt to defne rural by only its most basic constitutional elements remains vague, because it is impossible to determine a precise numerical value for either population size or population density that determines on which side of the line a researcher would classify a place as either rural or urban. The primary reason for this is because rural localities are so incredibly diverse by locality, a diversity that was long invisible to most criminology scholars. Instead, it is the responsibility of rural crime scholars to clearly defne what it is they are studying, frst by size

Access to justice for rural victims

29

and/or population density, and then by other correlated characteristics that make up the socio-cultural context of their study sites. In other words, do not assume – do the research instead!

What is victimisation? Who is a victim? What is victimisation and who is a victim are essentially the same question and will be discussed jointly. Defning what is a victimisation incident may seem simple to do but in fact is quite complicated. This is because the term is often left undefned, with government agencies and scholars alike opting to defne specifc types of victimisation, or it takes on qualities of a tautology. In regard to the former, victimisation is left undefned, except by type, even in some of the most frequently referred to encyclopedias in criminology. In regard to the latter, defning something in terms of itself begin to creep into defnitional considerations. For example, in the Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice edited by Jay Albanese, ‘victimology’ is defned as the “scientifc inquiry into issues related to victims” (Dillenburger, 2014). Victimology studies victims, but what is a victimisation and who is a victim? Likewise, in another encyclopedia entry, victimisation is not defned per se, but victimisation risk is specifed as the chance or probability of becoming a crime target (Schreck & Posick, 2014). Hence, victimisation (or alternately, who is a victim) is not and likely cannot ever be defned in its essential or intrinsic quality but only by reference to an event or a socio-cultural-legal context of some kind. Crime is usually defned as a violation of a law or regulation that distinguishes the boundaries between what is considered wrong and what is not. Laws and regulations are constructed by governmental and other entities; hence there is the context of political economy that recognises the role of both power and inequality (usually along social class lines in market economies) in both creating legalistic statements of what is criminal and of the uneven (inevitably) enforcement of those laws across social class and other sociological characteristics of people that create complex societies with heterogeneous populations. Like rural and victim, crime is a social construction (Becker, 1963; Erickson, 1966; Young, 2011), not only by governments and regulatory agencies but by the very scientists who purport to study the phenomena. That is why one important task of rural criminologists is to continuously be on guard against scholars who stereotype the rural and dismiss rural crime studies, especially rural victims, as relatively unimportant people. What is victimisation and who is a victim becomes even more complicated when considering the concept of harm, a concept pioneered in an allied feld to rural criminology called green criminology (Donnermeyer, 2016, pp. 285–287). Like rural and victimisation, it is useful to reduce harm to its essentials, even if it is impossible to distinguish an exact dividing line between what is harmful and what is not harmful. Presser (2017, p. 377) uses the word ‘destructive’ as the primary adjective to describe harm, followed by where that destruction may occur, such as

30

Joseph F. Donnermeyer

to a physical ecology, as well as to various human environments. For Presser (2017), harm means a reduction in the quality of life of humans and non-human species, plus the ability of plants to thrive, water to be clean and healthful for all, and other attributes of the physical world in which people, animals, plants live. After-all, all are part of planet earth, or as the father of metaphysical poetry John Donne once said: “No man is an island, entire of itself ”.1 However, what is destructive for some individuals within society, such as by where they live, may not be for other individuals. Take, for example, the central article for the October 2021 issue of National Geographic, extolling the virtues of green technology for solving so many of planet Earth’s problems, especially global warming (Welch, 2021). On pages 58 and 59 is a full-spread picture of the Indonesian villages of Tapuemea and Tapunggaeya on the island of Sulwesi. The caption for this picture reads: “nickel mining has brought jobs with wages rivaling those of workers in Jakarta. But erosion and runof after forests are cleared for mines can harm nearby sea life”. Left unsaid is harms to water quality and to a cycle of boomand-bust for the people who live there when nickel mining, a mineral essential for batteries, runs its course. The resource curse, as it is called (Auty, 1993; Ruddell, 2017), may be a relatively new term, but the uneven impacts of the human use of land, water, forests, animals and plants for food, precious metals for making objects, and an endless list of the ways people impact the natural world around them is as old as the human race itself (from archaic humans to homo sapiens). It is what the mid-twentieth century sociologist Robert Merton (1968) pointed to when he asked the question: ‘functional for whom?’ In other words, harm is certainly not uniform, and as a concept that greatly expanded the defnition of victimisation and who is a victim, it points to issues associated with what is meant by access to justice and why rural criminologists should prioritise theorising, research, policy and practice about it. It seems that just as there is a rural idyll, that is, a socially constructed romanticised image of rural that inhibited criminological scholarship related to rural crime studies, there is now a kind of ‘green idyll’ whereby anything that is not related to coal, derivatives of crude oil and other technologies that pollute the air and build up greenhouse gases, is unquestionably good for all. But, perhaps not for the rural people who live near the quarries that mine the minerals needed for these new technologies to save the planet. The National Geographic article (Welch, 2021) also points to another consideration for what is victimisation and who is a victim. Victims are not always single individuals. Victims, especially rural victims, can be whole villages; that is, the way of life of the people who live at these places. Hence, cultures and the values, beliefs and normative patterns that embody what makes up a culture, can likewise be victims. Where, for example, can access to justice be gained for Indigenous groups from resource development and the expansion of large-scale farming in the face of corporate lawyers for the mining companies, agribusinesses and governments who prioritise economic development over the quality of life of a minority of its citizens who live far from governmental centres (Cunneen & Tauri, 2017)?

Access to justice for rural victims

31

What is ‘access to justice’? With considerations of what is rural, what is victimisation, what is crime, what is harm and what is ‘functional for whom’, a discussion of access to justice and rural victims can be pondered in a hopefully tidier framework. But, again, we must consider defnitions: what is meant by both access and justice? Access is hardly a commonly used word in criminology; that is, one that has any kind of conceptual or theoretical meaning. Yet it is incredibly important. After-all, it can be argued that criminologists researching and theorising in most places of the world assume at least a modicum of equality in access to justice. A common defnition of the word ‘access’ refers to an ability to approach an object, such as to enter into a building or to retrieve information from a data source. In criminological terms, therefore, it means the ability to approach and utilise police, courts and other criminal justice agency resources and services. Justice may be the most common word in the criminology lexicon, other than the word ‘crime’. What is a defnition of justice, however? Like other words discussed in this chapter, justice is not defned in encyclopedias and textbooks generically or in some intrinsic form, but contextually. So, for example, in the Encyclopedia of interpersonal violence, there is an entry for restorative justice that states: “Restorative justice is an approach to crime aimed at repairing the harm by victims and the community caused by a criminal act” (Armour, 2008, p. 595). There is no entry for the word ‘justice’ by itself. Justice is always accompanied by a second word, like restorative. Yet, it can be seen that justice assumes accessibility so that there is some sort of payback, and in the case of restorative justice, it is making amends by ofenders to victims. Another common meaning for justice is punishment, which is the age-old idea that those who commit crime must be held accountable for their actions. In this case, they must payback society. This, however, begs the question – justice for whom?

Access to justice and rural victims Over the next three decades, that is, up to the middle of the twenty-frst century, it can be argued that the most important rural issue for theorising, research and action (both policy and security programs) may be access to justice. Why? Because rural victims are often perceived as relatively unimportant, and in the scholarly community, that means undeserving of research. Here is a case in point from personal experience. On a couple of occasions when presenting at the American Society of Criminology or engaged in a ‘hallway’ conversation at the annual meeting, this author has mentioned the importance of farm crime and its efects on farm families. When attempting to back-up key contentions by mentioning the economic loss of sheep theft to Australian farmers, especially to United States criminologists who historically have never focused on rural crime, a likely response will be snickering; if there is a particularly smart-aleck and insensitive scholar among the group, a comment about a particular perverted act that a human can commit against sheep

32

Joseph F. Donnermeyer

as the primary motivation for stealing the animal might be ofered. In other words, they myopically and often unintelligently see little deservingness for the victim. Barclay (2003) defned deservingness as the way people see relationships between cause and efect about crime. In this case, what factors precipitate (cause) a crime (efect). Using Sykes and Matza’s (1957) conceptualisation of the techniques of neutralisation by which people learn to rationalise deviant and criminal behavior, she and her colleagues (Barclay et al., 2004, p. 11) devised a working hypothesis that “the presence of attitudes within communities regarding the deservingness of the victim” may facilitate “ofenders employing neutralisation techniques to enable them to commit crime”. This is especially true if ofenders are members of the community and share similar beliefs about who is deserving and who is not. In her research (Barclay, 2003; Barclay et al., 2004), three scenarios were used to gauge deservingness. The frst scenario concerned the theft of 94 black angus cattle valued at over AUD$60,000 (USD$43,600). Gates were locked and the theft was well-planned and professional. The police believed the thieves had good knowledge of the property. The second scenario involved a man convicted of slaughtering a single sheep on his property. The sheep had an earmark identifying it as belonging to a neighbour, but the perpetrator complained that sheep were always wandering on to his property. The third scenario involved a farmer reporting several incidents of stock theft, with a neighbour as the suspect. The suspect, according to the victim, talks frequently about his bad farm management practices and that his sheep constantly get out and stray on to others’ properties. The police have asked the victim to prove the sheep found on his neighbour’s property are his, indicating a lack of identifcation for the missing animals. A series of questions asked about whether or not the described crime incidents were signifcant and whose responsibility it was for the loss of stock. From an analysis of the responses, three profles of ‘blamers’ was developed. One was ‘society blamers’, who saw the existence of crime as mostly due to lack of police resources, unemployment and the fact that crime is ‘part of life’. Victim blamers tended to associate lack of responsibility for the loss of stock in the scenarios to farmers’ less than adequate management practices and lackadaisical approach to security. The third group were those who seemed to blame society and victims to about the same extent. Observing that local norms, values and beliefs do indeed infuence the behaviour of police ofcers relative to the seriousness with which they take reported incidents of agricultural crime, Barclay et  al. (2004, p. 10) conclude that “the complex system of relationships between the victim, the ofender, witnesses, the police . . . are representations of the structure of relationships found within rural communities”. Hence, a criminal act can be discussed, analysed and researched only with reference to a broader and relativistic context of socio-cultural norms and beliefs that include judgements about victims and how deserving they are of attention from the criminal justice system, politicians and the media alike. Taking it a step further, policy and practice that considers the safety and security of people living at various places around the world, both rural and urban, is a product of these

Access to justice for rural victims

33

same socio-cultural dynamics. Does one group of people based on where they live deserve more or less access to justice by the police and other criminal justice agencies? The obvious answer can only be found in a context that includes a wide variety of factors, including rurality. To assume that access to justice is equal for everyone by geography, and even to admit that it might be a tad more or a tidbit less for some people, is to create another idyll; this one about justice itself that is as wrong in its assumptions as the idylls about the relationship of crime to rurality and of the unquestioned benefts of green technology. Consider as an analogy the case in the United States of Gabby Petito, whose dead body was found two weeks after she was reported missing. She had been traveling across the country in a van with her boyfriend (who apparently later died by suicide) during mid-2021, stopping of at various places in the American west for camping and hiking. Her case rapidly reached celebrity status and was headline news day-after-day because of who she was: young, blonde and beautiful, with many postings of her on social media displaying an engaging and vibrant smile. Yet, there were hundreds of other young women missing in the United States, many of them women of color, or Native American or Latino, or working class, and not white and middle class. Collectively, media coverage of their cases lagged so far behind the sensationalism of the Petito case so as to be nearly invisible. They had no face, but Petito’s bubbly smiles graced every form of media in the United States and across the world for many days. Certainly, violence against any woman is deserving of our attention, our shock and our calls for justice. But, this case highlights how much discriminatory media coverage is itself a form of unequal deservingness that has come to be known as the ‘missing white woman syndrome’, illustrating how uneven access to justice can be for certain groups of people, particularly persons of color (see Pearce, 2021). Rural is similarly a status ascribed to individuals who live in smaller places that can be neglected simply because they seem less deserving of attention by the criminological community and the criminal justice system. Somehow, defnitions of what is a crime and how much harm afected a victim can change when the person is rural. Simply put, often they are considered less deserving. The importance of considering rurality as an ascribed status relative to issues of access to justice is that it intersects with other socially constructed statuses that likewise infuence access (Potter, 2015). From a visual point of view, intersectionality can be thought as the intertwining of statuses that describe the multi-dimensional nature of the social and cultural contexts of people’s lives. In this case, what are the statuses of rural people that possibly infuence their access to justice? Camilleri (2019; see also chapter 7 of this volume) was one of the frst scholars to explore access to justice amongst rural people and rural communities. Her concept of access to justice begins with a basis in a legalistic approach; that is, one based on Rhode and Cummings (2017), who, in turn, defne it as the ability to seek remedies (that is, justice) through various criminal justice institutions. She then expands it through an assumed intersectionality of rurality and people with disabilities in the Australian state of Victoria. Using disability to explore access,

34

Joseph F. Donnermeyer

she discusses through various cases the challenges posed by cognitive and physical impairments, creating inaccessible environments, both physically and in terms of credibility as witnesses and as victims to crime. It may seem mundane to use disabilities to explore access to justice but, in fact, it is quite signifcant. As Camilleri (2019) observes, it is often the case that people with disabilities more likely live in rural localities, and are also at higher risk to violence of various kinds. She lists some of the barriers to access, such as “not being believed”, “viewed as unreliable and lacking credibility and capacity”, “negative perceptions about the capacity of people” with disabilities to be competent witnesses, and “barriers associated with police interviews and cross examination” in criminal cases (Camilleri, 2019, p. 94). She adds in physical barriers of a rural location that lessen access to police service and other legal services, plus various social services. All in all, Camilleri’s analysis of the intersectionality of rurality and disabilities looks a lot like the issues associated with access to justice in many other ways. That is because rural people are often victims, not directly through the crimes they experience, but because often they lack credibility and both their crime experiences and their sense of fear and feelings of insecurity often are not regarded seriously. The continuing consolidation of police and other criminal justice services away from rural spaces and into urban centres exacerbates the situation (Pytlarz & Bowden, 2019). Now, consider the issue from the point of view of Indigenous populations and the intersectionality of Indigenous status (both as a descriptor of an individual but also as a group of people). We already know that in settler societies like Australia, Canada, Mexico and the United States, plus many others where European immigrants appropriated territories and destroyed cultures, the original inhabitants are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice systems of those countries (Cunneen & Tauri, 2017). We also know that one of the reasons for this disproportionality is their poverty that is more likely to be multi-generational and of a higher rate when compared to non-indigenous persons. Plus, there is the persistent issue of discriminatory enforcement of laws and harsher fnes and sentences. For example, in the United States, it is referred to as ‘driving while black’. Extrapolating from what we know about the over-representation of the Indigenous population in the criminal justice systems of various countries, it is easier to see how race, ethnicity, age (especially younger people), social class and a variety of other factors might intersect with the rural status of people to create a deeper understanding of these disproportionalities.

Conclusion Rural people lack access to justice in two basic ways. First, they may not be regarded as credible or important as either witnesses or victims, or as individuals for whom police and criminal justice should be directed to enhance their sense of safety and security. Their status as rural combines or intersects with other characteristics of who they are to diminish their perceived social value. As the world continues to

Access to justice for rural victims

35

urbanise, there is great potential that rural peoples and rural communities will be left further and further behind in the provision of resources necessary to prevent crime, decrease risk to crime and increase a sense of security and safety (Donnermeyer, 2021). Second, some rural people, depending upon how rurality intersects with other statuses, can be assigned too much credibility, but this time as suspected ofenders and participants in illegal activities. Simply put, access to justice is about context, and understanding this context should help a next generation of rural criminologists to provide conceptual frameworks from which more efective policy and practice, customised for rural environments, can be developed leading to a more equal or balanced application of the principles of equal justice. This chapter addressed access to justice not as if rurality is the only attribute that matters, but as a matrix of both individual characteristics or statuses of rural people and of where rural people live and of many networks to which they belong, such as tribe, subculture, lifestyle, ethnicity, race and social class. An idyllic image about rural peoples and rural places persists in the minds of many in the criminological community, and among government ofcials, from the national to the local level. These images obscure rural realities and create heightened inequities that contribute to the further deterioration or harm in relation to the quality of life in rural regions. It is time for rural criminologists to apply their scholarship to the reversal of these trends.

Note 1 John Donne (1572–1631) was an English poet known for his use of verse more closely akin to the spoken word than most other poets of his time, who regarded poetic language as lyrical. Donne is best known today for his poem titled “No man is an island”. Its fnal sentence contains the words – “. . . never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee” – which was used for the title of a novel, published in 1940 about the Spanish Civil War by Ernest Hemingway (1899–1961) – “For Whom the Bell Tolls”.

References Armour, M. P. (2008). Restorative justice. In C. M. Renzetti & J. F. Edleson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of interpersonal justice (vol. 2, pp. 595–596). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Auty, R. (1993). Sustaining development in mineral economies: The resource curse thesis. London: Routledge. Barclay, E. (2003). Crime within rural communities: The dark side of “gemeinschaft”. Doctoral dissertation. Armidale, NSW: University of New England. Barclay, E., Donnermeyer, J. F., & Jobes, P. C. (2004). The dark side of gemeinschaft: Criminality within rural communities. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 6(3), 7–22. Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press. Camilleri, M. (2019). Disabled in rural Victoria: Exploring the intersection of victimisation, disability and rurality on access to justice. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 5(1), 88–112.

36

Joseph F. Donnermeyer

Cunneen, C., & Tauri, J. (2017). Indigenous criminology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Defem, M. (1999). Ferdinand Tönnies on crime and society: An unexplored contribution to criminological sociololgy. History of the Human Sciences, 12(3), 87–116. DeKeseredy, W. S. (2021). Woman abuse in rural places. London: Routledge. Dillenburger, K. (2014). Victimology. In J. S. Albanese (Ed.), The encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Donnermeyer, J. F. (2016). The intersection of rural and green criminologies. In J. F. Donnermeyer (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of rural criminology (pp. 285–287). London: Routledge. Donnermeyer, J. F. (2020). Social justice and problematising the concept of ‘rural’. In A. Harkness (Ed.), Rural crime prevention: Theory, tactics and techniques (pp. 19–29). London: Routledge. Donnermeyer, J. F. (2021). Varnost ruralhih skupnosti v vse bolj urbanisiranem svetu (The security of rural communities in an increasingly urbanized world). In G. Mesko (Ed.), Varnost v lokalnih skupnostih: Med ruralnimi in urbanimi perspektivami (Safety and security in local communities – between rural and urban perspectives) (pp.  5–26). Univerza v Mariboru, Fakulteta za varnostne vede (University of Malibor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security): Ljubljana, Slovenia. Donnermeyer, J. F., & DeKeseredy, W. S. (2014). Rural criminology. London: Routledge. Erickson, E. (1966). Wayward Puritans. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Freudenburg, W. R. (1986). The density of acquaintanceship: An overlooked variable in community research? American Journal of Sociology, 92(1), 27–63. Hayden, K. E. (2021). The rural primitive in American popular culture: All too familiar. Lanham, MD: Lexington. Jobes, P. C., Barclay, E., Weinand, H., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (2004). A structural analysis of social disorganization and crime in rural communities in Australia. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37(1), 114–140. Jobes, P. C., Donnermeyer, J. F., & Barclay, E. (2005). A tale of two towns: Social structure, integration and crime in rural New South Wales. Sociologia Ruralis, 45(3), 224–244. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press. Pearce, M. (2021, October 4). Gabby Petito and one way to break media’s ‘missing white woman syndrome’. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/ story/2021-10-04/gabby-petito-and-breaking-the-white-missing-women-syndrome Potter, H. (2015). Intersectionality and criminology: Disrupting and revolutionizing studies of crime. London: Routledge. Presser, L. (2017). Social harm/zemiology. In A. Brisman, E. Carrabine,  & N. South (Eds.), The Routledge companion to criminological theory and concepts (pp. 377–380). London: Routledge. Pytlarz, A.,  & Bowden, M. (2019). “Crime talk”, security and fear in the countryside: A preliminary study of a rural Irish town and its hinterland. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 4(2), 138–172. Rhode, M., & Cummings, S. L. (2017). Access to justice: Looking back, thinking ahead. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 30(3), 485–500. Ruddell, R. (2017). Oil, gas,  & crime: The dark side of the boomtown. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Schreck, C. J., & Posick, C. (2014). Victim profles. In J. S. Albanese (Ed.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–673.

Access to justice for rural victims

37

Tönnies, F. (1955). Community and society. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Welch, C. (2021, October). The big bet on clean cars. National Geographic, 43–61. Wells, L. E.,  & Weisheit, R. A. (2012). Explaining crime in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan communities. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 1(2), 153–183. Young, J. (2011). The criminological imagination. Cambridge: Polity.

4 RURALITY, CRIME AND FEAR OF CRIME Vania Ceccato

Although fear of crime is recognisable as an urban phenomenon (Carcach, 2000; Christie et al., 1965; Hough, 1995) the study of fear of crime in rural areas has steadily increased since the turn of the twenty-frst century (Ceccato, 2018; Krannich et  al., 1989; Panelli et  al., 2004; Pettigrew  & Adhikari, 2017; Yarwood  & Edwards, 1995). While high rates of crime are often associated with high overall levels of fear in large cities (Ceccato, 2016; Donnermeyer & Kreps, 1986; Harkness et al., 2016; Skogan, 1990), the relationship between crime and individuals’ declared fear is far more complex in rural areas. Fear and other overall anxieties in rural areas seem to refect other dimensions of individuals’ lives (and of communities) other than just the risk of victimisation. This chapter reviews contemporary scholarship in criminology to discuss the nature of fear in rural areas, particularly the fear of crime. It also discusses how rurality afects fear of crime and how fear infuences individuals’ lives in rural areas, such as by making individuals feel a need to take (precautionary) action against an imminent threat, or cope with their own fears.

Basic concepts Rurality as a research subject has long been a focus of interest; in particular, the search for knowledge on what makes the rural diferent from other environments is extensive (for example Bell, 1997; Cloke & Little, 1997; Hoggart, 1990; Philo, 1997; Woods, 2005, 2011; Woods et al., 2014; Yarwood, 2005). Despite rural areas being diverse and complex (Gallent & Gkartzios, 2019; Halfacree, 2006), they are sometimes associated with the image of ‘the rural idyll’ – a place that is calm and unafected by the transformations that happen in the world (Bell, 2006), and sometimes seen as ‘the strange’ and ‘the backward’. Challenges faced by police services are some of many problems that generate the sense of ‘forgotten places’ tested by geographical isolation. In this chapter, the term ‘rural areas’ is used as an umbrella DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-5

Rurality, crime and fear of crime

39

term that involves a variety of environments, ranging from remote areas to those on the urban fringe and those in between, but all in constant transformation. Taking a step back from the rural-urban dichotomy (the rural not only being the ‘nonurban’), areas on ‘the rural-urban continuum’ are characterised by the fows of people, goods and landscapes in which crime opportunities may appear. Rural areas are hybrid environments (Woods, 2005) that can be better represented by a continuous (rather than dichotomous) scale stretching from remote and desolated spaces to accessible and connected environments of the urban fringe. Fragmented peripheral areas combine rural and urban uses, near-urban hinterlands, and well-connected areas dedicated to arable farming, for example. Some of these places are remote and isolated, but with today’s information and communication technology (ICT), they may be ‘rural’ in some respects and ‘urban’ in others (Ceccato, 2022; Gallent & Gkartzios, 2019). Rural areas are, to diferent extents, global, shaped by forces far beyond their local realities (Shortall & Warner, 2012; Woods, 2011). The word ‘crime’ indicates (levels of) victimisation, while ‘fear of crime’ is used here as a general term that indicates poor safety perceptions often linked to the risk being a victim of a crime but may also involve feelings of overall anxiety. Hale (1996) defnes fear of crime as the fear of being a victim of a crime as opposed to the actual probability of being a victim of crime – that is, the actual risk – while Ferraro (1995, p.  8) defnes it as “an emotional reaction of dread or anxiety to crime or symbols that a person associates with a crime”. Garofalo (1981, p. 72) defnes fear of crime as a “sense of danger and anxiety produced by the threat of physical harm”, where fear is defned as “an emotional reaction characterised by a sense of danger and anxiety”. Formally, fear is defned in the international literature as “an emotion, a feeling of alarm or dread caused by awareness or expectation of danger” (Warr, 2000, p. 453). Thus, fear refects what one sees and perceives with one’s senses; a function of one’s emotional reactions to a situation at a particular place and time. Garofalo (1981) distinguishes between ‘functional’ and ‘dysfunctional’ fear. Functional fear may lead to precautionary actions that may reduce both fear and risk that something ‘bad’ might happen (such as crime), while dysfunctional fear can paralyse individuals, afect their health and discourage them from fully participating in society. Indeed, too much and too little fear can both be considered dysfunctional. On the one hand, responses go beyond what should be necessary, while on the other hand, the individual is not motivated to take reasonable (pre)cautionary measures. For this author, the environmental component is essential in the conceptualisation of fear of crime, in this case, with a concrete harm. Garofalo (1981, p. 72) suggests “in order to constitute fear of crime, the fear must be elicited by perceived cues in the environment that relate to some aspect of crime for the person”. The next section turns to these perceived cues in rural environs.

The nature of fear in rural areas The international literature ofers contrasting associations between rural attributes and fear. Rurality can be expressed by its remoteness and geographical isolation,

40

Vania Ceccato

which may positively impact crime levels and people’s perceptions of safety as well (such as less accessibility for potential ofenders), while open, sparse and less dense areas are also associated with increased worry (Panelli et al., 2005). These ambiguous feelings about nature in rural areas can better be characterised through ‘topophobia’, namely experiences of spaces, places and landscapes which induce fear, anxiety and depression (Relph, 1976, p. 27). An example is given by Skår (2010) who illustrates how perceptions of forests vary by gender, exploring how individuals experience and respond to feelings of fear and anxiety in nature. Instead of approaching rurality in terms of what generates fear, one can also look at low fear levels in rural areas as expressions of the ‘rural idyll’ (for example Bell, 1997; Short, 1991). The rural idyll is considered a socially constructed stereotype of the rural, often depicted as quiet places, harmonious, cohesive and homogeneous communities surrounded by a hinterland of farms with little or no confict (Lockie  & Bourke, 2001; Squire, 1993; Wangüemert, 2001). Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy (2008) suggest that interpretations of rural areas that draw upon the rural idyll assume crime and fear of crime to be external or a lagged efect of urbanisation. Previous research shows that rural residents may not associate fear with crime per se, but rather with what they perceive as a threat to conceptions of the rural idyll (Marshall & Johnson, 2005). Yet, far too often low crime rates in rural areas are mistakenly considered as a sign of no crime (Yarwood, 2001, p. 206) with no problem to those who live there, missing the impact that particular crimes can have in these communities. Fear, as suggested by Pain and Smith (2008), is central to the terrain of daily lived experience, including in rural contexts. Fear has often been associated with societal changes, such as rapid infux of people, long-term unemployment, reduced basic social services or perceptions of exclusion from the local economy, combined perhaps with xenophobia or structural racism (Chakraborti & Garland, 2011; Crompton, 2008; Krannich et al., 1989; Palmer, 1996). For example, rural residents in a rural area may worry about people traveling into their community because of the perceived risk of crime (Norris & Reeves, 2013). Overall, feeling neglected by authorities can afect declared feelings of fear. Poor communication, lack of police response (or presence) and low conviction rates (Donnermeyer & Barclay, 2005; Harkness, 2020; Smith, 2020) can leave individuals feeling like second-class citizens and neglected (Smith, 2020). In certain cases, fear reveals the ‘silence’ of crime victims in rural areas, indicated by high underreporting rates, which may refect a lack of trust in authorities, in the police in particular, as victims and witnesses refrain from witnessing and revealing local criminal groups in fear of retaliation (Ceccato & Ceccato, 2017). Other groups may feel controlled and under suspicion by society (such as by animal farm inspectors) and sometimes exposed by institutions that should supposedly be supporting local businesses. Others feel that their contribution to society was once self-evident, where it is now contested by changes in consumption patterns. These societal changes are bound to create levels of fear and anxiety among the most afected, infuencing their wellbeing, their activities as well as their families and employees (Ceccato et al., 2021).

Rurality, crime and fear of crime

41

Power relationships in the community may also trigger fear, at least for some (Hunter et al., 2002; Scott et al., 2012; Yarwood & Gardner, 2000). There is growing evidence that people who do not ft into idealised constructions of rurality feel excluded from rural places (for several examples, see Yarwood (2010). Exclusion of ethnic minorities can take diferent shapes (Robinson & Gardner, 2012), and economic change and dissatisfaction have been associated with the proliferation of xenophobic ideas and overall anxiety (Jensen, 2012). Moreover, studies of confictrelated fear in rural contexts show how the diferent phases of confict (such as wars) result in people’s relationship with fear changing over time, including its efects (Pettigrew & Adhikari, 2017). Fear and other overall anxiety may also be generated by a sense of loss of personal security imposed by changes that go far beyond rural areas. Media plays a role in magnifying danger and fear (Winkel & Vrij, 1990). Anyone, anywhere, can be a cybercrime victim, as fear is fed by boundary-less ‘global’ forces, not always known by police forces. Globalised networks of crime can afect rural areas and people – for example, access to drugs over the internet – which demands new ways of tackling crime and ensuring people’s safety. Hummelsheim et al. (2010, p. 5), suggests that “if fear of crime can be both a specifc concern about crime and a more general projection of a range of connected social anxieties”, including a condensation of broader concerns about crime, stability, and social change, then “fear of crime should be closely connected with feelings of social insecurity”. However, previous research indicates that overall anxiety does not vary widely across space in a country, although fear of becoming a victim of crime does (Ceccato, 2016). A potential reason for this contrasting pattern is that when people are asked about overall worry, they may be led to represent futureoriented anxiety(ies) rather than to provide a summary of past episodes or current feelings of fear (Sacco, 2005; Warr, 2000). Another possible reason is that inequalities in victimisation may indirectly afect both fears of crime and the feelings of overall anxiety, some of them moderated by individual-level characteristics (such as age) and others by group-level characteristics (such as poverty) – mechanisms not well understood by current scholarship.

Individual factors afecting fear of crime in rural areas People living in rural areas often declare feeling safer overall than people living in urban areas do (Ceccato, 2016; Donnermeyer & Kreps, 1986). Although true in many contexts, such trends do not reveal inequalities in victimisation and fear within rural areas that are worth highlighting. Both individual and structural factors afect fear expressed by those living in rural areas. Despite conficting fndings (Cates et al., 2003; Garofalo & Laub, 1979), international evidence shows that previous victimisation continues to be an important determinant of an individual’s fear level (Hale, 1996; Hirtenlehner & Farrall, 2014; Otis, 2007; Yates & Ceccato, 2020): for example, the experience of being robbed, subjected to intimidation or being assaulted. It is well known that the poor are

42

Vania Ceccato

over-represented among crime victims and those in fear (Nilsson & Estrada, 2006; Tseloni et  al., 2010). Experiencing or witnessing other people’s victimisation, especially someone close such as family or friends, may also afect an individual’s level of fear (for a review, see Skogan, 1987). The seriousness of the threat is also important in generating strong fear. As Warr (2000, p. 458) suggests, a crime must be perceived as both serious and likely to occur. Fear of crime is dependent on individual characteristics, such as gender and age. Women are traditionally portrayed as being more fearful about their personal safety compared to men (Box et al., 1988; Koskela, 1999; Loukaitou-Sideris, 2004). Regardless, fear is often related to the vulnerability hypothesis, in which those perceiving themselves as vulnerable are likely to be more fearful. In reality, women may express more fear as a result of the inequitable gender structure rather than to women’s actual vulnerability (Gilchrist et al., 1998). Women’s fear of crime is also expressed by the “shadow of sexual assault” (Ferraro, 1996), making women pay higher costs for their ‘safety work’ in public places; that is, the unnoticed work that goes into feeling safe (Vera-Gray, 2018). In rural areas, in case of domestic violence from partners or family members, women may fear ostracism if the violence becomes public (DeKeseredy et al., 2012). Language barriers make some of these domestic violence victims even more vulnerable, as social and geographical isolation can make seeking help particularly problematic for ethnic minority groups (Ceccato, 2016). Research has long shown that while young people are statistically more at risk of victimisation, older and/or disabled individuals tend to be more fearful (Furstenberg, 1971; Lagrange  & Ferraro, 1989). An individual’s disability afects vulnerability to crime (Iudici, 2015; Iudici et al., 2017), so-called disabled hate crimes (Hall, 2019). Age also intersects with sexual orientation to determine varied levels of victimisation and fear of crime. Rurality has long been understood as a site of oppression and absence for Queer individuals (Gorman-Murray et al., 2008). The imposition of binary gender norms in rural areas is not well researched, but is becoming an area of interest (Atalay & Doan, 2019). Conner and Okamura (2021) illustrate the advantages of rural living for LGBTQIA+ individuals, while Hartal (2015) describes how activists in rural areas go against the urban dominant norm of being Queer.

The impact of fear of crime and precautionary measures Fear of crime can have major implications for people’s lives, including their health (Boldis et al., 2018), and it can often lead to a “sense that one must always be on guard, vigilant and alert” (Gordon & Riger, 1989, p. 2). According to Jackson and Gouseti (2012), there is a set of precautions that people take as responses to fear of crime. The concept of precaution is adopted here to exemplify “eforts (that) can be made in advance to thwart danger” or cope with fear, not including purely unplanned eforts (Felson & Clarke, 2010, p. 107). Precautionary measures may be taken at an individual or group level, and often involve behavioural or lifestyle adjustments. One type of individual-level

Rurality, crime and fear of crime

43

precautionary measure is avoidance behaviour (Jackson & Gouseti, 2012), which involves minimising contact with certain types of people, routine activities or places. For example, farmers avoid participating in community fairs or opening their farms to the public if they feel unsafe by the potential presence of animal rights activists. Another type is to adopt protective behaviour, which may encompass activities that are thought to prevent crime (such as erecting a wall to avoid intruders) or wider activities of self-protection (such as installing CCTV cameras or improving illumination). The increased demand for rural, gated developments, linked to a market where consumers are willing to pay for exclusivity in a supposed idyllic rural setting, bridges these types of measures. One may also adopt group-level protectionary measures including participation in groups, such as neighbourhood watch schemes or citizens’ patrols, that are intended to reduce crime opportunities and/or increase safety perceptions.

A tentative conceptual model of fear of crime in the rural The tentative conceptual model illustrated in Figure 4.1, which is based on Garofalo’s (1981) general model of fear of crime, focuses on characterising the rural situational factors afecting fear of crime and overall anxieties as discussed in previous sections. In it, crime and victimisation are the central but not the unique triggers of fear experienced by those living in areas on the rural-urban continuum. To summarise the model, fear of crime is determined by crime prevalence (amounts of certain types of crimes in places and situations of which the individual is aware), being aware of the likelihood of victimisation as well as one’s attractiveness as a crime target (vulnerability), as some individuals are more vulnerable to crime than others. The efects of these criminogenic factors on individual safety

Functional Fear Individual factors affecting fear of crime (gender, age, socio-economic conditions)

Crime Prevalence Likelihood

Fear of crime and overall anxieties

The impact of fear of crime individual and societal responses

Vulnerability Dysfunctional Fear

Situational rural conditions Locational factors - Remoteness - Geographical isolation - Open/border - Sparse/low density - Forest/flat/hilly - Rural idyll - Rural strangeness

Situational factors - Poor communication - Lack of police response - Poor trust in authorities - Under suspicion/criticism - Controlled by authorities - Challenged infrastructure - Lack of support

Social factors - Rapid influx of population - Long-term unemployment - Demographic imbalance - Poor job opportunities - Conflict between groups - Trouble brought by outsiders - Xenophobia

External factors

Overall societal climate and individual attitudes, globalisation, ontological insecurity, inequities, political polarisation

FIGURE 4.1

A tentative conceptual model of fear of crime in areas on the rural-urban continuum (based on Garofalo, 1981)

44

Vania Ceccato

perceptions are infuenced by individual characteristics (such as gender, age), which in turn interact with local situational rural conditions as well as external contexts, and the infuences vary across time. The impacts of situational rural conditions are split into physical or locational factors (such as remoteness, sparse population), structural factors (such as poor emergency services, lack of support) and social factors (such as demographic imbalances, xenophobia). Crime and fear have consequences for individuals, which can be characterised by changes in behaviour (such as place and time avoidance) and/or paralysis, but also for those close to them (family, friends, employees) and those in the community.

Conclusion This chapter has established links between aspects of rurality that afect crime and fear. Fear of crime is dependent on multiscale factors that rarely ft local patterns of victimisation in rural contexts, which refects complex interlinkages of demographic, socio-economic and technological dynamics that often go beyond the locality. It includes a tentative conceptual model of rural fear of crime, illustrations of precautionary measures and examples of how rural situational conditions afect crime and fear. There is an emergent need for a better understanding of the mechanisms linking fear and overall anxiety, one that recognises the hybrid, globalised nature of these rural environments, their contextual diferences and the varied safety demands of their residents.

References Atalay, O., & Doan, P. L. (2019). Reading the LGBT movement through its spatiality in Istanbul, Turkey. Geography Research Forum, 39, 106–126. Bell, D. (1997). Anti-idyll: Rural horror. In P. Cloke & J. Litte (Eds.), Contested countryside cultures: Otherness, marginalisation and rurality (pp. 94–108). London: Routledge. Bell, D. (2006). Variation on the rural idyll. In P. Cloke, T. Marsden, & P. Mooney (Eds.), Handbook of rural studies (pp. 149–160). Tousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Boldis, B. V., San Sebastián, M., & Gustafsson, P. E. (2018). Unsafe and unequal: A decomposition analysis of income inequalities in fear of crime in northern Sweden. International Journal for Equity in Health, 17(1), 110–122. Box, S., Hale, C., & Andrews, G. (1988). Explaining fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 28, 340–356. Carcach, C. (2000). Size, accessibility and crime in regional Australia. In Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice (No. 175). Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology. Cates, J. A., Dian, D. A., & Schnepf, G. W. (2003). Use of protection motivation theory to assess fear of crime in rural areas. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9(3), 225–236. Ceccato, V. (2016). Rural crime and community safety. London: Routledge. Ceccato, V. (2018). Fear of crime and overall anxieties in rural areas: The case of Sweden. In M. Lee & G. Mythen (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook on fear of crime. London: Routledge. Ceccato, V. (2022). Fifteen reasons to care about rural crime and safety. In M. Bowden & A. Harkness (Eds.), Rural transformations and rural crime: International critical perspectives in rural criminology. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

Rurality, crime and fear of crime

45

Ceccato, V., & Ceccato, H. (2017). Violence in the rural Global South: Trends, patterns, and tales from the Brazilian countryside. Criminal Justice Review, 42(3), 270–290. Ceccato, V., Lundqvist, P., Abraham, J., Göransson, E., & Alwall Svennefelt, C. (2021). The nature of fear among farmers working with animal production. International Criminology, 1(3), 193–207. Chakraborti, N., & Garland, J. (Eds.). (2011). Rural racism. London: Routledge. Christie, N., Andenaes, J., & Skirkbeckk, S. (1965). A study of self-reported crime. Scandinavian Studies in Criminology, 1(86), 116. Cloke, P., & Little, J. (1997). Contested countryside cultures: Otherness marginalisation and rurality. London: Routledge. Conner, C. T., & Okamura, D. (2021). Queer expectations: An empirical critique of rural LGBT+ narratives. Sexualities (Online frst). Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub. com/doi/abs/10.1177/13634607211013280 Crompton, J. L. (2008). Empirical evidence of the contributions of leisure services to alleviating social problems: A key to repositioning the leisure services feld. World Leisure Journal, 50(4), 243–258. DeKeseredy, W. S., Dragiewicz, M., & Rennisson, C. M. (2012). Racial/ethnic variations in violence against women: Urban, suburban, and rural diferences. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 1(2), 184–202. Donnermeyer, J. F.,  & Barclay, E. (2005). The policing of farm crime. Police Practice and Research, 6(1), 3–17. Donnermeyer, J. F., & DeKeseredy, W. S. (2008). Toward a rural critical criminology. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 23(2), 4–28. Donnermeyer, J. F.,  & Kreps, G. M. (1986). The benefts of crime prevention: A  comparative analysis. Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology (Economics and Sociology Occasional Paper No. 1295). Retrieved from https:// kb.osu.edu/handle/1811/65841 Felson, M., & Clarke, R. (2010). Routine precautions, criminology and crime prevention. In H. Barlow & S. Decker (Eds.), Crime and public policy: Putting theory to work. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Ferraro, K. F. (1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Ferraro, K. F. (1996). Women’s fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault? Social Forces, 75(2), 667–690. Furstenberg, J. F. F. (1971). Public reaction to crime in the streets. The American Scholar, 40(4), 601–610. Gallent, N., & Gkartzios, M. (2019). Defning rurality and the scope of rural planning. London: Routledge. Garofalo, J. (1981). The fear of crime: Causes and consequences. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72(2), 839–857. Garofalo, J., & Laub, J. (1979). Fear of crime – broadening our perspective. Victomology, 3, 242–253. Gilchrist, E., Bannister, J., Ditton, J., & Farrall, S. (1998). Women and the ‘fear of crime’: Challenging the accepted stereotype. The British Journal of Criminology, 38(2), 283–298. Gordon, M., & Riger, S. (1989). The female fear. New York: The Free Press. Gorman-Murray, A., Waitt, G., & Gibson, C. (2008). A queer country? A case study of the politics of gay/lesbian belonging in an Australian country town. Australian Georgrapher, 39(2), 171–191. Hale, C. (1996). Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of Victimology, 4(2), 79–150.

46

Vania Ceccato

Halfacree, K. (2006). Rural space: Constructing a three-fold architecture. In P. Clocke, T. Marsden,  & P. Mooney (Eds.), Handbook of rural studies (pp.  44–62). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Hall, E. (2019). A critical geography of disability hate crime. Area, 51(2), 249–256. Harkness, A. (Ed.). (2020). Rural crime prevention: Theory, tactics and techniques. London: Routledge. Harkness, A., Harris, B., & Baker, D. (Eds.). (2016). Locating crime in context and place: Perspectives on regional, rural and remote Australia. Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Hartal, G. (2015). Becoming periphery: Israeli LGBT ‘peripheralization’. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 14(2), 571–597. Hirtenlehner, H., & Farrall, S. (2014). Is the ‘shadow of sexual assault’ responsible for women’s higher fear of burglary? British Journal of Criminology, 54(6), 1167–1185. Hoggart, K. (1990). Let’s do away with rural. Journal of Rural Studies, 6(3), 245–257. Hough, M. (1995). Anxiety about crime: Findings from the 1994 British Crime Survey. London: Home Ofce, Research and Statistics. Hummelsheim, D., Hirtenlehner, H., Jackson, J., & Oberwittler, D. (2010). Social insecurities and fear of crime: A cross-national study on the impact of welfare state policies on crime-related anxieties. European Sociological Review, 27(3), 327–345. Hunter, L. M., Krannich, R. S., & Smith, M. D. (2002). Rural migration, rapid growth, and fear of crime. Rural Sociology, 67(1), 71–89. Iudici, A. (2015). Sexual harassment against people with mental disabilities in transit environments: Implications for services and clinics. In V. Ceccato & A. Newton (Eds.), Safety and security in transit environments: An interdisciplinary approach (pp.  328–343). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Iudici, A., Bertoli, L., & Faccio, E. (2017). The ‘invisible’ needs of women with disabilities in transportation systems. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 19(3), 264–275. Jackson, J., & Gouseti, I. (Eds.). (2012). Fear of crime: An entry to the encyclopedia of theoretical criminology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Jensen, M. (2012). Rasism, missnöje och”Fertile Grounds” Östergötland Sverige jämförs med Birkaland Finland: Sverigedemokraterna vs Sannfnländarna. Linköping: Linköping University. Koskela, H. (1999). Fear, control and space: Geographies of gender, fear of violence, and video surveillance. PhD thesis. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Krannich, R. S., Berry, E. H., & Greider, T. (1989). Fear of crime in rapidly changing rural communities: A longitudinal analysis. Rural Sociology, 54(2), 195–212. Lagrange, R. L., & Ferraro, K. F. (1989). Assessing age and gender diferences in perceived risk and fear of crime. Criminology, 27(4), 697–720. Lockie, S., & Bourke, L. (2001). Rurality bites: The social and environmental transformation of rural Australia. London: Pluto Press. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2004). Is it safe to walk here? Research on women’s issues in transportation. Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from https://trid.trb.org/view/773073 Marshall, B., & Johnson, S. (2005). Crime in rural areas: A review of the literature for the rural evidence research centre. London: Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, University College. Nilsson, A., & Estrada, F. (2006). The inequality of victimization: Trends in exposure to crime among rich and poor. European Journal of Criminology, 3(4), 387–412. Norris, G., & Reeves, H. (2013). Fear of crime and authoritarianism: A comparison of rural and urban attitudes. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 15(2), 134–150. Otis, M. D. (2007). Perceptions of victimization risk and fear of crime among lesbians and gay men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(2), 198–217. Pain, R., & Smith, S. J. (2008). Fear: Critical geopolitics and everyday life. In R. Pain & S. J. Smith (Eds.), Fear: Critical geopolitics and everyday life (pp. 1–24). Farnham: Ashgate.

Rurality, crime and fear of crime

47

Palmer, D. L. (1996). Determinants of Canadian attitudes toward immigration: More than just racism? Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 28(3), 180–192. Panelli, R., Kraack, A., & Little, J. (2005). Claiming space and community: Rural women’s strategies for living with, and beyond, fear. Geoforum, 36(4), 495–508. Panelli, R., Little, J. O., & Kraack, A. (2004). A community issue? Rural women’s feelings of safety and fear in New Zealand. Gender, Place & Culture, 11(3), 445–467. Pettigrew, J., & Adhikari, K. (2017). Fear and everyday life in rural Nepal. In A. Shah & J. Pettigrew (Eds.), Windows into a revolution: Ethnographies of Maoism in India and Nepal (pp. 233–258). London: Routledge. Philo, C. (1997). Of other rurals. In P. Cloke & J. Little (Eds.), Contested countryside cultures: Otherness marginalisation and rurality (pp. 19–50) London: Routledge. Relph, E. C. (1976). The phenomenological foundations of geography. Toronto, ON: Department of Geography, University of Toronto. Robinson, V.,  & Gardner, G. (2012). Unravelling a stereotype: The lived experience of black and minority ethnic in rural Wales. In N. Chakraborti & J. Garland (Eds.), Rural racism (pp. 85–107). London: Routledge. Sacco, V. (2005). When crime waves. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Scott, J., Carrington, K., & McIntosh, A. (2012). Established-outsider relations and fear of crime in mining towns. Sociologia Ruralis, 52(2), 147–169. Short, J. R. (1991). Imagined country: Environment, culture, and society. London: Routledge. Shortall, S., & Warner, M. (2012). Rural transformations: Conceptual and policy issues. In M. Shucksmith, D. Brown, S. Shothall, J. Vergunst, & M. Warner (Eds.), Rural transformations and rural policies in the US and UK (pp. 3–18). London: Routledge. Skår, M. (2010). Forest dear and forest fear: Dwellers’ relationships to their neighbourhood forest. Landscape and Urban Planning, 98(2), 110–116. Skogan, W. G. (1987). The impact of victimization on fear. Crime  & Delinquency, 33(1), 135–154. Skogan, W. G. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. New York: Free Press. Smith, K. (2020). Desolation in the countryside: How agricultural crime impacts the mental health of British farmers. Journal of Rural Studies, 80, 522–531. Squire, S. J. (1993). Valuing countryside: Refections on Beatrix Potter tourism. Area, 25(1), 5–10. Tseloni, A., Mailley, J., Farrell, G., & Tilley, N. (2010). Exploring the international decline in crime rates. European Journal of Criminology, 7(5), 375–394. Vera-Gray, F. V. (2018). Right amount of panic: How women trade freedom for safety. Bristol: Policy Press. Wangüemert, M. M. (2001). La Pampa: Historia de una pasión argentina [The pampas: An Argentinian Passion]. Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos de Sevilla, 357–369. Warr, M. (2000). Fear of crime in the United States: Avenues for research and policy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4, 451–489. Winkel, F. V., & Vrij, A. (1990). Fear of crime and mass media crime reports: Testing similarity hypotheses. International Review of Victimology, 1(3), 251–265. Woods, M. (2005). Defning the rural. In Rural geography: Processes, responses and experiences in rural restructuring (pp. 3–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Woods, M. (2011). Rural. London: Routledge. Woods, M., Flemmen, A. B., & Wollan, G. (2014). Beyond the idyll: Contested spaces of rural tourism. Norsk Geografsk Tidsskrift (Norwegian Journal of Geography), 68(3), 202–204.

48

Vania Ceccato

Yarwood, R. (2001). Crime and policing in the British countryside: Some agendas for contemporary geographical research. Sociologia Ruralis, 41(2), 201–219. Yarwood, R. (2005). Beyond the rural idyll: Images, countryside change and geography. Geography, 90(1), 19–31. Yarwood, R. (2010). An exclusive countryside? Crime concern, social exclusion and community policing in two English villages. Policing and Society, 20(1), 61–78. Yarwood, R., & Edwards, B. (1995). Voluntary action in rural areas: The case of neighbourhood watch. Journal of Rural Studies, 11(4), 447–459. Yarwood, R., & Gardner, G. (2000). Fear of crime, cultural threat and the countryside. Area, 32(4), 403–411. Yates, A., & Ceccato, V. (2020). Individual and spatial dimensions of women’s fear of crime: A Scandinavian study case. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 44(4), 1–16.

PART II

Realities

5 INTERPERSONAL VIOLENT VICTIMISATION BEYOND THE CITYSCAPE Ethan M. Rogers, Mark T. Berg, James C. Wo and William Alex Pridemore

Most of the rather limited body of scholarship on violence beyond the cityscape generally focuses either on domestic violence or applies urban-centric theories of interpersonal violence to the rural frontier. Yet while rural places have been romanticised as bucolic, simple and tightly woven social landscapes, the evidence reveals that this image of the rural village is more myth than reality. Many rural places have sufered a similar fate as distressed urban neighbourhoods – entrenched poverty and joblessness in the context of infrastructure disinvestment and the commodifcation of social institutions (Slack et al., 2020). Because of these intertwined forces, the opioid epidemic has had a particularly detrimental impact in rural America (Peters et al., 2020), and the rural mortality penalty has been large, persistent and growing (Cosby et al., 2019). Despite evidence that rural social organisation is under stress, criminological theories, data tools and policy choices remain urban-centric. What can criminology learn from a new wave of research on violence in the rural landscape? Can we explain patterns of violence in the rural United States with existing theories or alternatively, do we need rural-specifc explanations of violent victimisation? Many mainstream theories of violence were not designed to predict violence in rural places, but perhaps their underlying logic can be extended and modifed to ofer tools to understand violence and victimisation in places foreign to their initial formulation. A review of interpersonal violence beyond the cityscape is thus essential to inform scholars of rural criminology and motivate innovative approaches to rural violent victimisation. This chapter provides a description of the diferences in interpersonal violence across the rural/urban divide, including trends in violent victimisation since the 1990s. It ofers an overview of theories of violence and discusses their applicability to rural areas; it contemplates, in a case study, the lethality of violence across the rural/urban divide.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-7

52

Ethan M. Rogers et al.

Documenting violence across the rural/urban divide Accurate and timely information on violence is essential for advancing public safety beyond the cityscape. Descriptions of victimisation trends, for instance, are needed to propose and evaluate hypotheses and inform evaluations of crime control policy. Disaggregation by location is particularly important, because aggregate trends mask sharp diferences between urban and rural areas. Relying solely on the total homicide rate, for example, can be particularly misleading for conclusions about trends on the rural frontier. Several sources of data describe the incidence and characteristics of non-fatal and fatal violent victimisation across the rural/urban divide in the United States, including victimisation surveys and ofcial sources. Data are drawn from three sources emanating from the United States. First, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is used to document non-fatal violent victimisation trends from 1993 to 2019. The NCVS is an annual survey administered by the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics that collects information on criminal victimisation from persons age 12 or older. Simple assault and aggravated assault rate estimates have been generated using the NCVS Victimisation Analysis Tool. Second, an imputed national database of murder and non-negligent manslaughter derived from the Supplemental Homicide Reports (SHR) is used to calculate fatal violent victimisation trends from 1999 to 2019 (Fox, 2020). To correct for a substantial amount of missing data owing to incomplete cases and agency nonreporting, Fox (2020) implemented a two-stage multivariate strategy to impute case information on homicide incidents and to adjust for cases not recorded in the SHR (see Fox & Swatt, 2009). To calculate homicide rates, population data obtained from reports from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program were used. Third, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) underlying cause of death data available on CDC WONDER (2021) – an integrated data system developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – was used. The NCHS collects mortality information from state registries and death certifcates, and provides population estimates for calculating rates.

Measuring the rural/urban divide There are challenges to measuring interpersonal violence across the rural/urban continuum. For example, the UCR measures victimisation based on where the event occurred, while the NCVS measures victimisation based on where the victim resides (McDowall & Loftin, 2006). These diferences not only produce considerable challenges for comparisons across datasets, but they are also important for the validity of testing theory. Theoretical arguments that rely on the spatial diferences between rural and urban places, for instance, may be insufciently evaluated with NCVS data. Hypotheses may attempt to explain variation in victimisation across geographic place, while data may provide information on victims across residence.

Interpersonal violent victimisation beyond the cityscape

53

Diferences in victim reporting and police recording practices may complicate rural/urban comparisons in violence. Some speculate that closer relational ties between victims and ofenders and a reliance on informal social control rather than the state in rural places may reduce victim reporting (Hogg & Carrington, 2006). Berg and Lauritsen (2016) provide evidence, however, that victim reporting is similar across rural, suburban and urban places (see also Kaylen & Pridemore, 2015b). Instead, their results indicate prominent rural/urban diferences in police recording practices. Rural police agencies often face resource, stafng and technological challenges that undermine recording efciency and accuracy (Falcone et al., 2002; Weisheit et al., 1994). Research indicates that even homicide count data, too, sufer from recording errors in smaller and rural counties (Maltz & Targonski, 2002). Further complicating recording practices in rural settings is that police ofcers are more likely to be embedded in the communities in which they serve (Weisheit et al., 2005). Together, these challenges can bias tests of theory (Kaylen & Pridemore, 2013a). The level of analysis used to create the rural/urban continuum may mask considerable variation within what would be considered, by most accounts, rural locales. For instance, the NCVS defnes rurality at the county level. Thus, counties are classifed as being entirely rural or entirely non-rural. For example, California’s San Bernadino County is classifed as non-rural despite including much of the Mojave Desert (Anderson, 2020). Despite these limitations, documenting spatial and temporal variation in violent victimisation in rural areas is critical, and thus the following measurement classifcations are used. The rural/urban divide in the NCVS is measured by the victim’s location of residence: (i) urban – within a principal city of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA); (ii) suburban: within an MSA but not within a principal city of the MSA; and (iii) rural: outside of an MSA (Anderson, 2020). In the SHR dataset, the UCR population group indicator is used to create three categories: (i) urban: cities with a population of 100,000 people and more; (ii) suburban: cities with a population under 100,000 and metropolitan counties; and (iii) rural: non-metropolitan counties. For the NCHS dataset, the 2013 NCHS Urban-Rural Scheme is used to classify counties as: (i) urban: large central metro; (ii) suburban: large fringe metro, medium metro and small metro; and (iii) rural: non-metropolitan counties.

Non-fatal assault trends across the rural/urban divide Estimates from the NCVS and the National Crime Survey (NCS) indicate nonfatal violent victimisation is consistently higher in urban relative to rural areas. From 1973 to 1980, violent victimisation rates for city residents were approximately twice those of rural residents (Bachman, 1992). The gap narrowed slightly in the late 1980s owing to a modest decline in urban and suburban, but not rural rates. Using NCS and NCVS data, more recent research provides a clear story of violent trends – serious violence rates in urban areas have been consistently higher than rates in rural areas for nearly four decades, though that gap has been steadily declining since the 1990s (Berg & Lauritsen, 2016; Kaylen et al., 2017, 2019).

54

Ethan M. Rogers et al.

To extend the efort to document trends, the simple and aggravated assault victimisation rates from 1993 to 2019 across the rural/urban divide are displayed in Table  5.1, as is the percent change from the 1993 rate. Owing to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, this chapter follows prior work and replaces 2006 estimates with the average rates for 2005 and 2007 (Berg & Lauritsen, 2016). Between 1993 and 2019, the simple assault victimisation rate declined in urban areas by 73 percent (from 61.7 to 16.5 per 1,000 persons aged 12 or older), for suburban victims by 78 percent (48.4 to 10.7) and for rural victims by 56 percent (41.8 to 18.6). Through the 1990s, simple assault victimisation rates were consistently higher among urban relative to rural victims. For instance, in 1993 the urban rate was approximately 1.5 times the rural rate. Since the mid-2000s, however, the rural/urban gap has considerably declined. In 2007, for instance, urban and rural simple assault victimisation rates were the same (20.9 per 1,000). Remarkably, in 2018 and 2019, simple assault victimisation rates were higher in rural relative to urban areas for the frst time since 1993. Future scholarship should explore the potential substantive and methodological explanations for this change. Table 5.1 reveals a similar trend with aggravated assault victimisation rates. From 1993 to 2019, the aggravated assault victimisation rate declined 78  percent for TABLE 5.1 Non-fatal assault rates per 1,000 and percent change by location, 1993–2019

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Simple assault rates and % change from 1993

Aggravated assault rates and % change from 1993

Urban

Urban

61.7 63.0 56.4 48.8 46.0 39.0 33.7 27.3 27.8 25.8 24.6 22.7 21.9 21.4 20.9 19.4 17.9 14.8 17.7 20.9

2.1 −8.6 −20.9 −25.4 −36.8 −45.4 −55.8 −54.9 −58.2 −60.1 −63.2 −64.5 −65.3 −66.1 −68.6 −71.0 −76.0 −71.3 −66.1

Suburban

Rural

48.4 52.1 48.2 42.6 39.5 40.0 31.7 24.8 18.5 20.5 20.5 15.3 18.8 17.3 15.8 17.0 12.6 11.3 14.5 17.1

41.8 41.9 37.9 35.0 32.3 29.2 26.6 22.2 20.5 20.7 22.4 20.3 16.0 18.5 20.9 15.1 14.5 13.0 13.4 15.8

7.6 −0.4 −12.0 −18.4 −17.4 −34.5 −48.8 −61.8 −57.6 −57.6 −68.4 −61.2 −64.3 −67.4 −64.9 −74.0 −76.7 −70.0 −64.7

0.2 −9.3 −16.3 −22.7 −30.1 −36.4 −46.9 −51.0 −50.5 −46.4 −51.4 −61.7 −55.9 −50.0 −63.9 −65.3 −68.9 −67.9 −62.2

21.3 19.8 17.3 16.4 18.3 13.0 10.7 8.7 8.1 8.2 8.4 7.4 7.7 6.4 5.0 4.5 6.4 4.9 5.4 4.7

Suburban −7.0 −18.8 −23.0 −14.1 −39.0 −49.8 −59.2 −62.0 −61.5 −60.6 −65.3 −63.8 −70.2 −76.5 −78.9 −70.0 −77.0 −74.6 −77.9

15.9 16.0 13.5 11.5 11.6 11.3 8.3 6.5 5.2 4.6 4.7 5.2 4.0 4.4 4.8 3.4 3.2 2.4 3.2 3.6

Rural

11.8 0.6 11.2 −5.1 −15.1 8.3 −29.7 −27.7 13.0 10.2 −27.0 9.4 −20.3 −28.9 4.6 −61.0 −47.8 6.9 −41.5 −59.1 5.3 −55.1 −67.3 5.0 −57.6 −71.1 5.2 −55.9 −70.4 4.3 −63.6 −67.3 5.3 −55.1 −74.8 4.9 −58.5 −72.3 4.9 −58.5 −69.8 4.9 −58.5 −78.6 4.1 −65.3 −79.9 2.4 −79.7 −84.9 3.3 −72.0 −79.9 4.2 −64.4 −77.4 2.6 −78.0 (Continued)

Interpersonal violent victimisation beyond the cityscape

55

TABLE 5.1 (Continued)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Simple assault rates and % change from 1993

Aggravated assault rates and % change from 1993

Urban

Urban

17.1 12.8 14.1 18.1 16.8 16.8 16.5

−72.3 −79.3 −77.1 −70.7 −72.8 −72.8 −73.3

Suburban

Rural

16.5 12.4 10.9 10.5 11.6 12.5 10.7

10.8 11.8 9.7 10.5 11.1 17.3 18.6

−65.9 −74.4 −77.5 −78.3 −76.0 −74.2 −77.9

−74.2 −71.8 −76.8 −74.9 −73.4 −58.6 −55.5

4.8 3.8 3.6 5.6 4.0 4.7 4.7

Suburban −77.5 −82.2 −83.1 −73.7 −81.2 −77.9 −77.9

3.1 4.1 2.7 2.9 3.4 2.8 3.1

−80.5 −74.2 −83.0 −81.8 −78.6 −82.4 −80.5

Rural 3.7 4.9 3.0 2.8 3.9 5.6 3.5

−68.6 −58.5 −74.6 −76.3 −66.9 −52.5 −70.3

Source: Notes. NCVS defnitions of location are as follows: urban = within a principal city of an MSA; suburban = within an MSA but not within a principal city of the MSA; rural = outside of an MSA.

urban areas (21.3 to 4.7 per 1,000), 81 percent for suburban areas (15.9 to 3.1 per 1,000) and 70 percent for rural areas (11.8 to 3.5 per 1,000). From 1993 to 2009, the urban rate of aggravated assault was higher than the rural rate every year. In both 2013 and 2018, however, the rural rate of aggravated assault was higher than the urban rate. These estimates challenge many narratives of placid rural areas and suggest the well documented violence gap between rural and urban places may be a story of the past. However, the NCVS recently began using new defnitions for urban, suburban and rural areas (Anderson, 2020) that have implications for these conclusions (Morgan & Truman, 2019). For instance, when using the old defnitions, 2019 rates of violent victimisation are highest in rural (26.3 per 1,000) and urban areas (26.0 per 1,000), with suburban areas trailing far behind (16.5 per 1,000). When using the new defnitions, suburban areas have the highest violent victimisation rates (22.3 per 1,000), followed by urban (21.1 per 1,000) and rural areas (16.3 per 1,000). It is essential that scholars consider the impact of these defnitional changes.

Fatal victimisation trends across the rural/urban divide Research indicates that homicide declined across the rural/urban divide during the 1990s. Again, the decline was not as steep in rural settings (Lee  & Hayes, 2005), thus contributing to a shrinking rural/urban gap in homicide. More recent trends in homicide victimisation rates from the SHR (1995–2019) and NCHS (1999–2019) are shown in Table  5.2. During this period, SHR homicide rates were consistently higher in urban relative to rural areas. However, the urban-torural rate ratio dropped 28 percent from 2.97 in 1995 to 2.13 in 2019. This decline is driven largely by stabilising rural homicide rates in the early 2000s while urban rates continued their decline. From 1995 to 2019, urban homicide rates declined 51 percent, while rural rates declined only 31 percent. Table 5.2 reveals a similar

56

Ethan M. Rogers et al.

TABLE 5.2 Homicide rates per 100,000 and percent change by location, 1995–2019

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

SHR homicide rates and % change from 1995

NCHS homicide rates and % change from 1999

Urban

Urban

19.6 16.9 15.8 13.9 12.9 12.1 12.4 12.0 12.3 11.4 11.9 12.3 11.8 10.7 9.5 9.0 9.2 9.1 8.5 8.7 9.5 10.1 9.8 9.3 9.6

−13.3 −19.3 −28.8 −34.3 −38.4 −36.5 −38.5 −36.9 −41.6 −39.3 −37.3 −39.9 −45.4 −51.2 −54.0 −53.0 −53.3 −56.6 −55.4 −51.3 −48.3 −49.7 −52.7 −51.0

Suburban

Rural

5.0 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.3

6.6 6.3 5.8 5.6 5.0 4.6 4.8 4.3 4.1 5.3 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.1 4.0 3.7 4.7 4.4 3.6 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.5

2.9 −3.8 −9.8 −20.2 −22.7 −22.4 −22.5 −19.1 −23.8 −24.8 −22.0 −21.2 −25.2 −30.6 −34.3 −35.6 −38.3 −38.5 −41.6 −34.9 −26.1 −27.3 −31.7 −32.8

−4.4 −12.4 −14.6 −23.8 −30.7 −27.9 −34.6 −37.5 −20.0 −31.2 −36.8 −35.9 −30.3 −37.8 −39.6 −44.0 −29.1 −33.3 −46.1 −33.4 −33.8 −34.4 −38.3 −31.3

9.4 9.3 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.3 9.6 9.8 9.3 8.8 7.9 7.6 7.3 7.5 7.0 6.8 7.7 8.4 8.0 7.6 7.7

−1.1 3.2 3.2 4.3 −1.1 2.1 4.3 −1.1 −6.4 −16.0 −19.1 −22.3 −20.2 −25.5 −27.7 −18.1 −10.6 −14.9 −19.1 −18.1

Suburban

Rural

4.5 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.4 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.9

4.4 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.5 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1

−3.0 −2.1 0.0 −1.3 −3.1 1.5 3.6 4.9 0.5 −3.0 −7.7 −7.1 −5.1 −8.2 −9.3 −1.5 7.1 11.0 6.4 8.3

2.3 0.0 0.0 −4.5 2.3 − −2.3 −4.5 −6.8 −2.3 −4.5 −9.1 −4.5 −4.5 −4.5 −9.1 2.3 9.1 9.8 13.0 15.3

Source: Notes. SHR defnitions of location are as follows: urban = cities with population 100,000 and more; suburban = cities with population under 100,000 and metropolitan counties; rural = nonmetropolitan counties. NCHS defnitions of location are as follows: urban = large central metro; suburban = large fringe metro, medium metro, and small metro; rural = nonmetropolitan counties.

trend in the NCHS homicide rates. From 1999 to 2019, homicide rates in urban areas declined sharply, but NCHS estimates show rural homicide rates actually increased by 15 percent, from 4.4 to 5.1 per 100,000.

Theories of violent victimisation Rural places have long been juxtaposed with urban life. Early Chicago School sociologists examined rural life to understand aspects of social organisation in an increasingly industrialised society (for example, Wirth, 1938). Of particular interest to contemporary researchers are patterns of rural change unfolding in the agribusiness sector – a linchpin of rural social organisation. Periodic downturns in the farm

Interpersonal violent victimisation beyond the cityscape

57

economy facilitated an agricultural transition and elevated the scope of its adverse impact on businesses, infrastructure and civil society (Bultena et  al., 1986), and even health and suicide (Cosby et al., 2019; Pridemore et al., 2014) and rates of interpersonal violent victimisation (Lee, 2008). These social forces are not unlike those experienced in neighbourhoods across industrial cities from the 1960s onward, when broad patterns of deindustrialisation set in motion a cascade of consequences for the well-being of urban residents (Wilson, 1987). These macro-level structural forces and their efects on the social fabric, all of which originate in the political economy of the marketplace, are the building blocks for macro-level criminological and victimological theories. Early Chicago School research predicted that rural communities would exhibit increasing crime rates as they adopted “urban dynamics” of social disorganisation (Clinard, 1944, p. 38; Thomas & Znaniecki, 1918). The theoretical notion that the social organisation of rural settings is internally distinct from urban environments remains implicit to more modern theorising. The base assumptions of a few macro-level criminological theories are described henceforth, and their ft for violent victimisation outside urban areas is considered. Shaw and McKay’s (1942) social disorganisation theory attempted to account for the spatial patterning of crime and violence across the metropolitan landscape. Their laboratory was Chicago during an era of massive social transformation, most notably an infux of immigrants from Europe. From their view, dislocations of the social structure impaired social networks and resources therein resulting in social disorganisation. Social disorganisation refected the twin forces of inefective informal social controls resulting from the inarticulation of conventional values and the transmission of pro-criminal norms among peer groups (Bursik  & Grasmick, 1993). Research found support for these basic propositions of Shaw and McKay’s model, nearly all of which has been conducted in urban samples (for example Sampson & Groves, 1989). However, multilevel studies of criminal behaviour suggest that contextual processes in the vein of disorganisation have similar efects on rural and urban youth. If these efects are indeed similar across environments, then this evidence favours arguments that separate theories of rural/urban contextual processes are not required (Wilcox Rountree & Clayton, 1999). Moreover, survey research has found that individuals who reside in places with high levels of social disorganisation experience elevated rates of violent victimisation including partner victimisation (Lauritsen, 2001). Social disorganisation theory’s basic assumption that networks of afliation grounded in shared values are necessary for the regulation of crime in residential areas may be extended to understand variation in rates of violence in rural places. Just like urban neighbourhoods, rural areas contain social networks through which shared expectations for action are realised. To the extent that these networks are inactive or depleted, people can act without the force of social restraint. Osgood and Chambers (2000) found many of the correlates of social disorganisation – population turnover, racial and ethnic heterogeneity – were associated with violent

58

Ethan M. Rogers et al.

crime in rural counties across the United States in a manner that mirrors patterns found in metropolitan places (see also Goodson & Boufard, 2020). However, the authors assessed rurality at the county level, masking a great deal of variation within counties across the urban/rural continuum. The reliance on ofcial crime data at the county level is problematic given known errors in rural crime counts (Berg & Lauritsen, 2016; Kaylen & Pridemore, 2015a, 2015b). Further, a series of studies by Kaylen and Pridemore (2011, 2013a, 2013b) failed to replicate these earlier results; found little support for social disorganisation in rural areas; and revealed that associations with crime were dependent on the measure of the dependent variable, and their frst direct test of the full systemic model found no support for social disorganisation in rural areas (see Rogers & Pridemore, 2016). Still, it may be that rural areas experience less violence precisely because the levels of social organisation in these settings are stronger and more efective at collective regulation than forms of organisation commonly found in urban areas. The exchange networks of rural communities are often multi-generational and combine familial and parochial connections (Hoferth & Iceland, 1998), and this mixture of connections could combine to form a comparatively vibrant level of social organisation that has noticeable efects on levels of violence. Researchers should assess how the quality of ties in rural relative to metropolitan places might account for diferences in levels of interpersonal violent victimisation across geographic areas. Rural ties may be denser and built on inter-generational connectivity to parochial institutions, giving them more power to deliver collective goods. Around the mid-1980s, the cultural transmission component of the social disorganisation model regained prominence owing to Wilson’s (1987) and Anderson’s (1999) popular work, and in psychological research on regional diferences in violence (Cohen & Nisbett, 1994). Contemporary accounts of subcultural processes mirrored early theoretical claims regarding the normative context of violent behaviour. According to these accounts, owing to resource deprivation, distrust and institutional estrangement, certain urban neighbourhoods collectively embrace an alternative value system that rewards illicit and unconventional behaviours, especially in certain situations (see Berg et al., 2012). Youth are socialised into this normative system even though it is at odds with the protocols of conventional culture. Here they learn the justifcations, scripts and techniques that support and encourage illicit behaviour. These normative conditions promote a retaliatory ethic which expects individuals to respond with violence when provoked or victimised by an adversary (Berg et al., 2012). Wolfgang’s (1957) examination of homicide case fles in a single city in the United States suggested that these same normative conditions facilitate victim precipitated homicides. Just as norms of honour take hold in urban areas, so too can it become attached in the social landscape of rural environments. Much of the discussion around the ‘culture of honour’ thesis focuses on the presence of honour culture in isolated mountainous regions of the American South. This honour culture shares many of the same qualities with the street code described most notably by Anderson (1999), with its emphasis on respect, low tolerance for insult, lack of faith in the

Interpersonal violent victimisation beyond the cityscape

59

criminal justice system and embrace of violent resolutions to confict. Concerns about honour often coexist with masculinity norms and motivate violence among men, but honour has also been shown in several studies to motivate violence by women against women and against men (Mullins et al., 2004). Moreover, episodes of serious and deadly violence in rural and urban areas often develop from incidents requiring the defense of one’s personal honour or honour maintenance. Few rural-centric theories of violent victimisation have been developed. Most work borrows from urban theories to explain patterns in rural places and how they might difer in volume from the cityscape. Prominent among rural-focused theories is Lee’s (2008) ‘civic community thesis’, which builds on the social capital, rural sociology and community attachment literatures. Lee (2008) implies that rural places beset by high rates of violence sufer from high levels of residential mobility in combination with a disinvestment in local business and civic infrastructure. Such places are also commonly characterised by depleted levels of participatory engagement and social connectivity owing to the gradual erosion of secular and religious organisations where networks typically emerge. According to Lee and Thomas (2010, p.  120), a “robust civic infrastructure coupled with a locally oriented business climate produces a strong social fabric”. Much like social disorganisation theory, the civic community thesis considers its focal explanatory variables to be social integration and social control. While this theory is designed to explain crime in rural places, its basic assumptions would seem applicable to crime in cities and metropolitan areas. Moreover, the theory’s logic would be of relevance to victimisation in rural and urban areas. Routine activities theory has emerged as one of the most prominent explanations of urban crime and victimisation. The theory posits that for a crime to occur, a motivated ofender and suitable target (person or object) must converge in space and time in the absence of capable guardianship, referred to as the ‘criminal opportunity structure’ (Cohen & Felson, 1979, p. 592). The lack of any of these three ingredients is sufcient to prevent the successful completion of a crime. At the macro-level, ofending and victimisation is shaped by the spatial and temporal patterns of peoples’ routine activities, including work, family, leisure and consumption. While routine activities perspectives have contributed to several insights about the spatial and temporal patterns of violent crime and victimisation, like the work of social disorganisation perspectives, research has been dominated by an urban focus. Thus, there remain several exciting opportunities for research in the spatial and temporal patterns of rural crime and victimisation (Weisheit & Wells, 1996). First, routine activities theory has contributed to the development of one of criminology’s most consistent empirical facts – the ‘law of crime concentration’. Studies of urban cities have routinely shown that crime, and thus victimisation, is not evenly distributed across geographic space; rather, crime spatially concentrates in a small percentage of spatial units within a city (Weisburd, 2015). Whether this ‘law’ holds and how strongly it holds in non-urban environments remains an empirical question. The design of streets, transportation methods and land use are all features contributing to opportunity structures that shape crime – all of which

60

Ethan M. Rogers et al.

may difer in rural settings. Some research suggests that crime may be even more highly concentrated in suburban areas (Gill et al., 2017) and one study indicates the concentration of crime within the towns of a rural county in England (Mawby, 2007). Second, routine activities have emphasised the importance of the characteristics of the built environment for facilitating criminal opportunity structures (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1995; Hipp & Williams, 2020). For instance, the presence of bars, liquor stores, convenience stores and cheque cashers have been linked to higher rates of crime and victimisation (Grof & Lockwood, 2014; Pridemore & Grubesic, 2013). These facilities are conceptualised as crime attractors because they ofer an abundance of known criminal opportunities at or near their locations which, in turn, induces motivated ofenders to travel to these locations with the intent to commit crime: ‘the journey to crime’ (Andresen, 2019). Importantly, there is also a ‘journey to victimisation’ where specifc locations also draw suitable targets, or victims (Luo et al., 2021; Pizarro et al., 2007). Does this journey fundamentally difer in rural areas? Research suggests notable diferences in travel across the rural/urban divide (Millward & Spinney, 2011). Additionally, research indicates that the proximity of a victim’s residence to an ofender’s residence is closely related to the chance of victimisation (Luo et al., 2021). Given the spread of residences in rural areas, the ‘travel to victimisation’ in rural places may be one important vein for future research (Mawby, 2015). It remains an empirical question whether longer travel in rural areas may account for variation in victim concentration and diferences in violence from urban places. Third, other qualities of areas are associated with victimisation by way of nonresidential foot trafc – the ratio of visitors to residents. For instance, studies have shown that victimisation is positively related to the density of roads and the centrality of spatial units within a city’s street network (Kim & Wo, 2021). Previous research has linked the concentration of non-residential land uses (such as commercial, industrial, ofce and mixed) to higher victimisation rates (Wo, 2019). It follows that those areas with such characteristics attract large numbers of people during the course of their routine activities, and in turn attract potential ofenders who notice situations with weakly guarded targets and exploit these criminal opportunities. Perhaps urban areas generally have higher rates of crime because they have a higher density of public and semi-public spaces in comparison to rural areas. Considering the numerous rural/urban diferences in routines, including tourism, recreation and work (Matz et  al., 2015; Slocum  & Kline, 2017), rural crime research might aim to explore the unique crime generators operating in rural areas. For instance, the recent economic pressures on rural areas to invest in tourism may considerably alter the opportunity structure of crime in rural places by attracting temporary tourists from urban areas as well seasonal workers and second homeowners (Mawby, 2015). Fourth, while there have been considerable advances in the concept of guardianship over the past few decades (Felson, 1995; Reynald, 2009), research on guardianship in rural contexts remains sparse despite the numerous ways in which guardianship is likely to difer (see Hollis  & Hankhouse, 2019). Fifth, routine

Interpersonal violent victimisation beyond the cityscape

61

activities theory provided scholars with a comprehensive approach to seasonality, calling attention to how temporal cycles change the physical environment and structure individual behaviours (McDowall et al., 2012). Early research considered rural/urban diferences in the seasonality of crime and homicide, but produced inconsistent fndings (Block, 1984; Cheatwood, 1988). Moreover, it is not apparent that any study has considered diferences in seasonality within rural settings, which may be a particular gap considering the seasonal demands of rural farming communities.

Conclusion Variation in rates of interpersonal violent victimisation across the rural/urban divide is a neglected area of research. This remains true despite the evidence that the rural/ urban gap in simple assault, aggravated assault and even homicide is shrinking. As the distinctions between rural and urban violence continue to blur, criminologists must direct greater attention to non-urban environments. Urban-centric theories ofer insight that may help explain rural violence and victimisation, though they may not be sufcient and rural-oriented theories may also be required. While there are similarities in structure and institutions across the rural/urban continuum, there are unique aspects of rural organisation that may create particular spatial and temporal variation of rural violent victimisation that demand more attention.

References Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Anderson, J. H. (2020). Classifcation of urban, suburban, and rural areas in the national crime victimization survey. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Ofce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Andresen, M. A. (2019). Environmental criminology: Evolution, theory, and practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Bachman, R. (1992). Crime victimization in city, suburban, and rural areas: A national crime victimization survey report. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Ofce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Berg, M. T., & Lauritsen, J. L. (2016). Telling a similar story twice? NCVS/UCR convergence in serious violent crime rates in rural, suburban, and urban places (1973–2010). Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(1), 61–87. Berg, M. T., Stewart, C. J., & Simons, R. L. (2012). The victim-ofender overlap in context: Examining the role of neighbourhood street culture. Criminology, 50(2), 359–390. Block, C. R. (1984). Is crime ceasonal? Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice. Brantingham, P., & Brantingham, P. (1995). Criminality of place. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 3(3), 5–26. Bultena, G., Lasley, P., & Geller, J. (1986). The farm crisis: Patterns and impacts of fnancial distress among Iowa farm families. Rural Sociology, 51(4), 436–448. Bursik, R.,  & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of efective community control. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. CDC WONDER. (2021). About underlying cause of death, 1999–2019. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from https://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html

62

Ethan M. Rogers et al.

Cheatwood, D. (1988). Is there a season for homicide? Criminology, 26(2), 287–306. Clinard, M. B. (1944). Rural criminal ofenders. American Journal of Sociology, 50(1), 38–45. Cohen, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1994). Self-protection and the culture of honor: Explaining southern violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 551–567. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. Cosby, A. G., McDoom-Echebiri, M. M., James, W., Khandekar, H., Brown, W., & Hanna, H. L. (2019). Growth and persistence of place-based mortality in the United States: The rural mortality penalty. American Journal of Public Health, 109(1), 155–162. Falcone, D. N., Wells, L. E., & Weisheit, R. A. (2002). The small-town police department. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 25(2), 371–384. Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place (vol. 4, pp. 53–66). Fakenham: Willow Tree Press. Fox, J. A. (2020). Imputed supplementary homicide reports, 1976–2019. Boston, MA: Northeastern University. Fox, J. A.,  & Swatt, M. L. (2009). Multiple imputation of the supplementary homicide reports, 1976–2005. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(1), 51–77. Gill, C., Wooditch, A., & Weisburd, D. (2017). Testing the “law of crime concentration at place” in a suburban setting: Implications for research and practice. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(3), 519–545. Goodson, A., & Boufard, L. A. (2020). The rural/urban divide: Examining diferent types of assault through a social disorganization lens. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(17–18), 3530–3553. Grof, E. R., & Lockwood, B. (2014). Criminogenic facilities and crime across street segments in Philadelphia: Uncovering evidence about the spatial extent of facility infuence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51(3), 277–314. Hipp, J. R., & Williams, S. A. (2020). Advances in spatial criminology: The spatial scale of crime. Annual Review of Criminology, 3(1), 15.1–15.21. Hoferth, S. L., & Iceland, J. (1998). Social capital in rural and urban communities. Rural Sociology, 63(4), 574–598. Hogg, R., & Carrington, K. (2006). Policing the rural crisis. Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Hollis, M. E., & Hankhouse, S. (2019). Crime risks and rural routines: A theoretical examination of guardianship activities in rural areas. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 4(2), 273–291. Kaylen, M., & Pridemore, W. A. (2011). A reassessment of the association between social disorganization and youth violence in rural areas. Social Science Quarterly, 92(4), 978–1001. Kaylen, M., & Pridemore, W. A. (2013a). The association between social disorganization and rural violence is sensitive to the measurement of the dependent variable. Criminal Justice Review, 38(2), 169–189. Kaylen, M., & Pridemore, W. A. (2013b). Social disorganization and crime in rural communities: The frst direct test of the systemic model. British Journal of Criminology, 53(5), 905–923. Kaylen, M.,  & Pridemore, W. A. (2015a). Measuring violent victimization: Rural, suburban, and urban police notifcation and emergency room treatment. Journal of Rural Studies, 39, 239–246. Kaylen, M., & Pridemore, W. A. (2015b). Serious assault victim and incident characteristics associated with police notifcation and treatment in emergency rooms in rural, suburban, and urban areas. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(4), 337–360. Kaylen, M., Pridemore, W. A., & Roche, S. P. (2017). The impact of changing demographic composition on aggravated assault victimization during the Great American Crime

Interpersonal violent victimisation beyond the cityscape

63

Decline: A counterfactual analysis of rates in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Criminal Justice Review, 42(3), 291–314. Kaylen, M., Pridemore, W. A., & Roche, S. P. (2019). A comparison of aggravated assault rate trends in rural, suburban, and urban areas using the UCR and NCS/NCVS, 1988– 2005. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 21(3), 181–199. Kim, Y-A., & Wo, J. C. (2021). Topography and crime in place: The efects of elevation, slope, and betweenness in San Francisco street segments. Journal of Urban Afairs, 1–25. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2021.1901591 Lauritsen, J. L. (2001). The social ecology of violent victimization: Individual and contextual efects in the NCVS. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17(1), 3–32. Lee, M. R. (2008). Civic community in the hinterland: Toward a theory of rural social structure and violence. Criminology, 46(2), 447–478. Lee, M. R., & Hayes, T. C. (2005). Decline in homicide victimization and the changing share of homicide victimization in rural areas during the 1990s: A research note. Criminal Justice Studies, 18(4), 393–401. Lee, M. R., & Thomas, S. A. (2010). Civic community, population change, and violent crime in rural communities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(1), 118–147. Luo, F., Zhang, Y, & Hoover, L. T. (2021). The journey to crime and victimization. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 23(3), 211–221. Maltz, M. D., & Targonski, J. (2002). A note on the use of county-level UCR data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18(3), 297–318. Matz, C. J., Stieb, D. M., & Brion, O. (2015). Urban-rural diferences in daily time-activity patterns, occupational activity and housing characteristics. Environmental Health, 14, article 88, 2–11. Mawby, R. I. (2007). Crime, place and explaining rural hotspots. International Journal of Rural Crime, 1, 21–43. Mawby, R. I. (2015). Exploring the relationship between crime and place in the countryside. Journal of Rural Studies, 39, 262–270. McDowall, D., & Loftin, C. (2006). What is convergence, and what do we know about it? In J. P. Lynch & L. A. Addington (Eds.), Understanding crime statistics: Revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and the UCR (pp. 93–122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDowall, D., Loftin, C., & Pate, M. (2012). Seasonal cycles in crime, and their variability. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28(3), 389–410. Millward, H., & Spinney, J. (2011). Time use, travel behavior, and the rural – urban continuum: Results from the Halifax STAR project. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(1), 51–58. Morgan, R. E., & Truman, J. L. (2019). Criminal victimization. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Ofce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Mullins, C. W., Wright, R., & Jacobs, B. A. (2004). Gender, streetlife and criminal retaliation. Criminology, 42(4), 911–940. Osgood, D. W., & Chambers, J. M. (2000). Social disorganization outside the metropolis: An analysis of rural youth violence. Criminology, 38(1), 81–116. Peters, D. J., Monnat, S. M., Hochstetler, A. L., & Berg, M. T. (2020). The opioid hydra: Understanding overdose mortality epidemics and syndemics across the rural-urban continuum. Rural Sociology, 85(3), 589–622. Pizarro, J. M., Corsaro, N.,  & Yu, S. V. (2007). Journey to crime and victimization: An application of routine activities theory and environmental criminology to homicide. Victims & Ofenders, 2(4), 375–394. Pridemore, W. A., Berg, M. T., Rogers, E. M., & Chamlin, M. B. (2014). Rain on the scarecrow, blood on the plow: The impact of the 1980s farm crisis on suicide in rural America. Chicago, IL: American Sociological Association.

64

Ethan M. Rogers et al.

Pridemore, W. A.,  & Grubesic, T. H. (2013). Alcohol outlets and community levels of interpersonal violence: Spatial density, outlet type, and seriousness of assault. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 132–159. Reynald, D. M. (2009). Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 11(1), 1–20. Rogers, E., & Pridemore, W. A. (2016). Research on social disorganization theory. In J. F. Donnermeyer (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of rural criminology (pp. 23–31). London: Routledge. Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing socialdisorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Slack, T., Thiede, B. C., & Jensen, L. (2020). Race, residence, and underemployment: Fifty years in comparative perspective, 1968–2017. Rural Sociology, 85(2), 275–315. Slocum, S. L., & Kline, C. (2017). Linking urban and rural tourism: Strategies in sustainability. Wallingford: CABI. Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1918). The Polish peasant in Europe and America (vol. 1). Boston, MA: Badger. Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53(2), 133–157. Weisheit, R. A., Falcone, D. N., & Wells, L. E. (2005). Crime and policing in rural and smalltown America (3rd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Weisheit, R. A., & Wells, L. E. (1996). Rural crime and justice: Implications for theory and research. Crime and Delinquency, 42(3), 379–397. Weisheit, R. A., Wells, L. E., & Falcone, D. N. (1994). Community policing in small town and rural America. Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 549–567. Wilcox Rountree, P., & Clayton, R. R. (1999). A contextual model of adolescent alcohol use across the rural-urban continuum. Substance Use and Misuse, 34(4–5), 495–519. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1–24. Wo, J. C. (2019). Mixed land use and neighborhood crime. Social Science Research, 78, 170–186. Wolfgang, M. E. (1957). Victim precipitated criminal homicide. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Political Science, 48(1), 1–11.

CASE STUDY Lethality beyond the cityscape

This case study highlights the lethality of violent victimisation beyond the cityscape. The rates of both non-fatal and fatal violent victimisation must be considered together to understand patterns of violence in rural places in comparison to urban areas. Research on interpersonal violence across the rural/urban continuum might beneft from a shift in focus from diferences in violence to diferences in lethality. Examining non-fatal and fatal violent victimisation separately ignores the prospect that the frequency of homicide relative to the volume of interpersonal conficts may difer beyond the cityscape (Berg, 2019). While many killings result from the escalation of non-lethal disputes, most disputes – even those involving some violence – do not end in death (Courtwright, 2009). Researchers of rural/urban diferences in violence must consider the fact that the proportion of disputes that end in violence varies independently from the total volume of interpersonal disputes (Felson et al., 2014). A homicide rate, therefore, refects both the tendency to get involved in hostile disputes and the tendency of those disputes to be resolved via lethal means. Thus, lethality – calculated using homicide as the numerator and non-fatal acts of aggression as the denominator – can be used as an indicator of the tendency to use lethal means to resolve disputes after accounting for the tendency to get involved in disputes. As one example, diferences in gun availability and gun use may be an important factor when examining diferences in lethality across the rural/urban divide. Guns tend to be more available in rural areas (Johnson et al., 2004). Despite these diferences in ownership, however, evidence suggests that guns are not used for criminal purposes any more in rural than urban places (Weisheit  & Wells, 2005). Other research indicates that gun availability is associated with gun violence in urban areas, but not rural areas (Moore, 2017), and that there is little impact of the weakening of gun regulations on gun homicides in rural places (Munasib et al., 2018).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-8

66

Ethan M. Rogers et al.

Together, these fndings suggest that the availability of guns may not explain variation in homicide across the rural/urban divide. It seems that rural residents are more likely to own guns, but they are less likely to use them for harmful purpose. A lingering question, however, is whether the availability of guns independently afect (i) the volume of confict and (ii) the lethality of confict. It could be that guns, as a protective measure, reduce the volume of conficts but increase the likelihood that conficts end in death. Thus, even if rural places have a lower volume of violence than urban areas, they may still be deadlier. Figure 5.1 displays the trends in the lethality rate ratios (the number of homicides per 1,000 simple assaults) for urban and rural places after adjusting for population. The lethality ratio indicates the number of Supplemental Homicide Reports (SHR) killings for every 1,000 violent victimisations reported in the NCVS. Homicide rates per 1000 were generated using the SHR homicide data and population data from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. Violent victimisation rates per 1,000 were estimated using National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data and downloaded from the National Victimization Analysis Tool (NVAT). A couple of factors limit the lethality comparisons in this case study. First, nonfatal victimisations are only among persons aged 12 years or older, while homicide victimisations include persons of any age. Second, while the SHR and NCVS use similar defnitions for rural places, defnitions for urban places are less comparable – NCVS uses “the largest city (or grouping of cities) in a Metropolitan Statistical

Homicides per 100,000 nonfatal violent victimisations

450 400 350

Urban lethality

300 250 200 150 100

Rural lethality

50 0 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 Year

FIGURE 5.1

United States violent victimisation lethality rate ratio (number of homicides per 100,000 violent victimisations), 1995–2019.

Source: Notes. Grey trendlines display annual lethality. Black trendlines display three-year moving averages in lethality. Urban is defned as cities with a population of 100,000 or over. Rural is defned as non-metropolitan counties.

Interpersonal violent victimisation beyond the cityscape

67

Area” for urban, while we use cities with population 100,000 and more to indicate urban in the SHR data. Third, the SHR homicides use place of incident, while NCVS uses location of residence. Nevertheless, these comparisons ofer a frst look at rural/urban diferences in lethality. There are a few notable patterns. First, lethality appears to be lower in rural compared to urban places, meaning there were more murders per non-fatal victimisations in the largest cities of the United States. For instance, in 1995, there were approximately 218 homicides per 100,000 violent victimisations in urban places. In rural places, there were approximately 130 homicides per 100,000 violent victimisations. Second, since the late 1990s, the lethality of violence has been steadily increasing across the rural/urban divide. By 2015, the peak year for both areas, the lethality rate ratio had increased by 92.5  percent in urban places (419 homicides per 100,000 violent victimisations) and by 140.8 percent in rural places (314 homicides per 100,000 violent victimisations). Third, while the trends in lethality across the rural/urban divide have generally paralleled each other, there also appears to have been periods of dissimilarity. From 1995 through 2010, the pace of increase in lethality was faster in urban rather than rural places. Urban lethality was approximately 1.7 times higher than rural lethality from 1995–1999, but nearly two times higher from 2005–2009. In 2010, rural lethality continued to climb while urban lethality began to decrease, bringing the rural/urban gap in lethality to 1.6 from 2010–2014. Then, in 2015 and 2016, both rural and urban places experienced a spike in lethality, as previously shown (see Berg, 2019), followed by a decrease. Altogether, despite some dissimilarity, lethality trends in rural and urban places tend to move in tandem – with rural lethality consistently lower.

References Berg, M. T. (2019). Trends in the lethality of American Violence. Homicide Studies, 23(3), 262–284. Courtwright, D. T. (2009). Violent land: Single men and social disorder from the frontier to the inner city. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Felson, R. B., Berg, M. T., & Rogers, M. L. (2014). Bring a gun to a gunfght: Armed adversaries and violence across nations. Social Science Research, 47, 79–90. Johnson, R. M., Coyne-Beasley, T.,  & Runyan, C. W. (2004). Firearm ownership and storage practices, US households, 1992–2002: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(2), 173–182. Moore, M. D. (2017). Firearm prevalence and homicide: An examination of urban and suburban counties. Criminal Justice Review, 42(3), 315–326. Munasib, A., Kostandini, G., & Jordan, J. L. (2018). Impact of the stand your ground law on gun deaths: Evidence of a rural urban dichotomy. European Journal of Law and Economics, 45(3), 527–554. Weisheit, R. A.,  & Wells, L. E. (2005). Deadly violence in the heartland: Comparing homicide patterns in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties. Homicide Studies, 9(1), 55–80.

6 MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN RURAL PLACES Walter S. DeKeseredy

The popular media, which today also includes internet pornography, sends out mixed messages about rural women. Some stories portray them as hardened grandmothers, while others depict them as sexual objects or targets of “the rural primitive” in “backwoods horror flms” (Hayden, 2021, p. 6). Rarely, however, do popular flms, documentaries, news stories and TV shows feature rural women as community leaders or family breadwinners. There are a few exceptions, including the role played by Jessica Lange in the 1984 flm Country. In this movie, set within the context of the widespread foreclosures of United States farms in the early 1980s, Lange and actor Sam Shepard are married with children, and they and their neighbors face the threat of losing their farms. Shepard loses hope and starts drinking, while Lange “remains strong and organizes the community to stand up for their land” (Oliver, 2006, p. 1). Another salient exception identifed by Hayden (2021) is the 2010 flm Winter’s Bone. Actress Jennifer Lawrence plays a teenage girl struggling to keep her poverty-stricken family together in the Ozark mountains in the United States. Though the mainstream media may depict rural women as weak, unintelligent, seductive or victims of violent, demented in-bred locals without conscience or constraint (DeKeseredy, 2021a; DeKeseredy et al., 2014), rarely do they focus on violent acts committed by rural women’s current or former intimate male partners. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to explain this selective inattention. Rather, the main objective is to chronicle feminist contributions to a rich sociological understanding of this type of “everyday violence”1 that millions of rural women around the world routinely experience.

Defnition of male-to-female violence2 Currently in vogue, particularly among ‘liberal feminist’ newcomers to the study of issues covered in this chapter, is the use of the highly problematic gender-neutral

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-9

Male violence against women in rural places

69

term ‘intimate partner violence’. Unlike ‘radical feminists’ who prioritise the concept of ‘patriarchy’ and who pioneered the study of woman abuse in private and public spaces (Renzetti, 2018), liberal feminists assert that women are discriminated against based on their sex, as they are denied access to the same political, fnancial, career and personal opportunities as men (Brubaker, 2019). For them, the problem of gender inequality can be solved by clearing the way for “women’s rapid integration into what has been the world of men” (Ehrenreich & English, 1978, p. 19). Radical feminists’ strategies for change, on the other hand, include: • • •

overthrowing patriarchal relations developing biological reproduction techniques that enable women to have sexual autonomy creating women-centered social institutions and women-only organisation (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988, p. 538).

Radical feminists do not perceive liberal feminism as really feminism at all. For them, it is a mere sop to women (Miller, 2021, p. xvii), ofering up perceived equality in name only while seemingly conceding that it is fne for women to be only a token numerical minority in positions of political and economic power. . . . We are directed into forgetting about dismantling the rotten societal structures that limit our choices to those which men fnd it convenient for us to have. Radical feminists also correctly point out that terms like ‘intimate partner violence’, ‘domestic violence’ and ‘spousal violence’ provide an inaccurate ‘mutual combat’ image of violence in heterosexual relationships (Berk et  al., 1983; DeKeseredy, 2021b). Put diferently, they assume that men and women are equally violent. Another problem with gender-neutral defnitions is that they do not address who initiates the violence, variance in physical strength and fghting competence between men and women, the extent of willingness to use this violence and whether violence is in self-defense. For these and other reasons stated elsewhere (see DeKeseredy, 2021a, 2021b), the violence examined in this chapter is primarily committed by men and the people who are the objects of such violence are primarily women (Pease, 2019). Hence, the terms violence against women and ‘woman abuse’ are used throughout this chapter. Further support for this approach is that “[g]lobally, one in three women worldwide will experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. . .” (Walby et al., 2017, p. 2). Violence against women is multidimensional in nature and exists on DeKeseredy’s (2021a) continuum of woman abuse, which is a modifed version of British radical feminist Liz Kelly’s (1987, 1988) continuum of sexual violence. Presented in Figure 6.1, located on the former continuum are behaviors ranging from ofine and online sexual harassment to ‘crimes of the powerful’,3 such as “the pervasive and enduring use of sexual violence by state militaries during both confict

70

Walter S. DeKeseredy

Online and Offline Psychological Economic Physical Sexual Sexual Harassment Abuse Abuse Abuse Abuse

Intimate Crimes of the Femicide Powerful

_________________________________________________________________ FIGURE 6.1

The continuum of woman abuse

and peacetime” (Collins, 2019, p. 179). Unfortunately, space limitations preclude examining crimes of the powerful in this chapter. This is not to say that the other behaviors on the continuum are more important or more injurious. The central argument of researchers informed by Figure 6.1 and Kelly’s ofering is that they all have a “basic common character.” They are all means of “abuse, intimidation, coercion, intrusion, threat and force” used primarily by men to control women (Kelly, 1988, p. 76), and they “seep into one another” (Ptacek, 2016, p. 128). Generally referred to as ‘polyvictimisation’, millions of women around the world experience “multiple victimizations of diferent kinds” (Mitchell et  al., 2018, p.  762). Yet, again, it is impossible to do justice to all of women’s violent experiences in a single chapter. Broad feminist conceptualisations of male-to-female violence are not at the margins of sociological or criminological research on the plight of women in rural areas. In fact, all the books on this harm published thus far are informed by some variant of feminism, but defnitely not by liberal feminism. As well, much of the sociological work (for example, DeKeseredy et al., 2007) on woman abuse in nonmetropolitan places is guided by masculinities theories for reasons best described by Hall-Sanchez (2014, p. 507): Continuing to research rural spaces is necessary to not only listen to women’s stories of violence, but also to begin to understand the construction and production of men’s identities and masculinities as they are negotiated in the face of socially and economically altered landscapes.

The extent and distribution of male-to-female violence in rural places4 Studies of woman abuse, along with research on substance abuse and addiction, now dominate rural criminological scholarship (DeKeseredy, 2021a; Dewey et al., 2019), but the extant literature on rural male-to-female violence mainly features United States and Australian scholarship. Additionally, most quantitative studies, especially those done in the United States, remain stuck in the quagmire of focusing only on rural, urban and suburban variations in men’s abuse of their current or former female partners. On the other hand, large-scale, multi-country violence against women surveys, such as the European Union-wide Survey on Violence Against Women (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014), do not report such geographic variations. Nonetheless, there is ample evidence from

Male violence against women in rural places

71

smaller-scale studies undertaken around the world that rural women experience higher and more severe rates of sexual and physical violence than those who live in more densely populated areas.5 There is also a handful of studies (for example, Burczycka, 2019) showing that rural women experience the highest rates of policereported intimate violence victimisation. The fndings uncovered from prevalence studies and other types of rural woman abuse inquiries should be read with some caution because there is no best or uniform defnition of ‘rural’. Donnermeyer (2020, p. 19) reminds us that: there is no such thing as a single rural sector within a country anywhere in the world, but rather a wide and varied collection of localities with smaller populations and population densities. No single word in the English language, or any other language for that matter, possesses enough linguistic power to encapsulate the multiplicities of rural realities; a diversity that likewise ofers “interesting social laboratories”. Most of the research on risk factors associated with violence against rural women has to date been done by Australian and United States criminological scholars. Though mainly qualitative, it has defnitely generated useful sociological knowledge. Identifed as key sources of rural male-to-female violence in a United States context are the following variables:6 • • • • • • • • • • • •

high rates of gun ownership patriarchal male peer support male pornography consumption separation/divorce natural disasters male hunting subcultures an ‘ol’ boys network’ that includes criminal justice ofcials alcohol and drug consumption natural resource extraction booms; community norms prohibiting women from seeking social support geographic and social isolation the absence of social support agencies and public transportation

Another consideration is whether the COVID-19 pandemic also presented a major risk factor in rural places. Thus far there has been only anecdotal proof of rural women being more vulnerable to increased victimisation during the pandemic than those living in more densely populated places (Dastagir, 2020).7 Yet, while the virus targets large and small communities alike, there are more barriers to services (such as geographic isolation) for rural abused women that make them less likely to receive aid even at the best of times (Wrathall & Herron, 2021). Consider female residents of West Virginia. Most of the counties in which they live are rural, and West Virginia is one of the few states in the United States not to

72

Walter S. DeKeseredy

have a city with more than 100,000 people. Charleston, the state capital, only has a population of 49,736 (World Population Review, 2020). Thus, strict measures to reduce the spread of the virus in 2020, such as the closing of essential services, created even more hurdles for survivors seeking social support, and leading experts predicted that there would be a surge in woman abuse cases (Smith, 2020). Battered women’s shelters were still open during the pandemic, but many women lacked means of getting to these refuges or did not go to them for fear of contracting the virus. Moreover, numerous women could not communicate with support workers via the telephone or internet because their abusers were able to monitor them at all times. Others could not correspond electronically because they lost their jobs and their telephone service and internet were disconnected as a result of not being able to pay their bills (DeKeseredy, 2022; Southall, 2020). If a wave of new research on the impact of COVID-19 on rural women is on its way, the same can be said about studies of rural women’s experiences of what Harris and Vitis (2020) refer to as ‘spaceless violence’, as well as their experiences of the co-occurrence of ofine and online victimisation. Spaceless violence involves using digital technology like social media to harm women. Some feminist criminologists (such as Harris, 2016) hypothesise that rural female targets of technology-facilitated stalking and other types of digital violence are at greater risk of being seriously harmed than their urban and suburban counterparts because they are geographically isolated and live far away from social services. Time will tell if this is actually the case. The aforementioned suggestions for future research constitute the tip of the iceberg, and readers are encouraged to absorb other recent materials on how to enhance empirical knowledge (for example DeKeseredy, 2021a, 2021c). New forms of research are top priorities, but so are new theoretical directions.

Theoretical advancement8 The COVID-19 pandemic restrictions made it difcult to use conventional data collection methods (such as face-to-face interviews), but it did not preclude theoretical development – and there is always room for new speculative theories. Indeed, “speculation is the soul of the social sciences” (Lave & March, 1993, p. 2). Even so, as Swedberg (2021, p. 70) notes: It is necessary that the explanation is constructed in such a way that it is testable in principle. It should also be stated clearly that the proposed explanation is the result of speculation and, if possible, what type of facts are needed to fll the gap of information. Moving forward also requires revising older theories based on the accumulation of new data. For example, the frst male peer support theory of woman abuse in university/college settings is speculative (see DeKeseredy, 1988) and was modifed a few years later based on the accumulation of what was then new data (see

Male violence against women in rural places

73

DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1993). Keeping with this tradition, the very frst feminist theories of rural woman abuse were informed by these two male peer support theories and data that were collected in the frst decade of the twenty-frst century (see DeKeseredy et al., 2004, 2007). Since then, the feld has accumulated more woman abuse data and it is again time to develop new theories based on these fndings. Whatever sociological theories are constructed and tested, the concept of patriarchy needs to be prioritised because “it keeps the gaze directed toward social contexts rather than toward individual men who are motivated to dominate” (Hunnicutt, 2009, p. 554). This approach is much more than an intellectual enterprise for two directly related reasons. First, as Websdale (1998, p.  194) discovered in his ethnographic study of woman battering and the criminal justice system in rural Kentucky, “any social policy initiatives must use the structure of rural patriarchy, in all its intricate manifestations, as an essential frame of reference”. Second, as Renzetti (2018, pp. 75–76) remarks, it also “raises public awareness, in the case of gendered inequalities, and . . . produces useable knowledge that contributes to the social reconstruction of gender and gender relations so they are more equitable”. The aforementioned theories of rural woman abuse, in addition to being informed by male peer support theories, are heavily infuenced by radical feminist theory, which sees male power and privilege as the “root cause” of all social relations, inequality and crime. To radical feminists, patriarchy is the most important set of social relations in any society. All other social relations, such as class, are secondary and originate from male-female relations (Beirne  & Messserschmidt, 2014). For some feminists who study rural social problems, radical feminism provides a relevant way of understanding violence against women because it is a gendered harm, but they assert that radical feminism needs to be combined with ‘anti-essentialist’ perspectives that “leave space for possible intersecting or divergent experiences between rural women” (Pruitt, 2007, p.  438). Such an integration “acknowledges the increasing diversity of women in rural areas . . . and elsewhere, specifcally racialized women with diverse cultural heritage” (Wrathall & Herron, 2021, p. 141). This theoretical position is typically referred to in the feminist literature as ‘intersectionality’, which is rooted in Black feminist theory and critical race theory (Collins & Bilge, 2016; Potter, 2015). Like radical feminists, intersectional feminists are sharply critical of liberal feminism, but unlike radical feminists, they devote much attention to the intersection of race/ethnicity, social class, sexuality, immigration status and other types of inequality (Crenshaw, 2000; Renzetti, 2018). Intersectionality is an integral part of much of the North American feminist criminological literature on male violence against Black women, and Potter’s (2008) Battle cries: Black women and intimate violence is but one major example. It has been stated that intersectionality has yet to gain momentum in feminist theoretical work on rural woman abuse (DeKeseredy, 2021a). A  shift, however, is slowly occurring, and the theoretical framework that informed Wrathall and Herron’s (2021) research on Canadian regional service providers’ understandings

74

Walter S. DeKeseredy

of rural attitudes toward violence against women is one example. What also makes their study novel is that it is one of the very few examinations of violence against women in rural Canadian places. There are more ways to advance theoretical work on the plight of women in rural areas, and they are featured in other recent publications (such as DeKeseredy, 2021a; DeKeseredy  & Rennison, 2020). Equally important is the development of efective prevention and control strategies. In the words of Australian feminist political economist Jacqui True (2012, p. 183), “[r]esearching violence against women – the point is to end it”. This statement is similar to this one inscribed on Karl Marx’s headstone: “Philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways, the point however is to change it”. One would be hard pressed to fnd a feminist scholar or any other type of critical criminologist who disagrees.

New directions in policy and practice9 One major obstacle in the search for efective policies and practices is that there are many bad ideas and simplistic solutions informed by bad theories or useless knowledge (Walker, 2010). A prime example is mass incarceration, a crime control approach well known in progressive circles to be a grand failure, especially in the United States. There are much better alternatives and a long list of the ‘usual suspects’ could easily be provided here. The main objective of this section is not to repeat what has already been recommended (DeKeseredy, 2020, 2021a) but rather to briefy supplement previous suggestions with more contemporary initiatives that involve education. Education is an all-encompassing word and has many meanings. Moreover, different types of education are needed, depending on the countries and cultures where rural male-to-female violence occurs. For example, non-consensual marital sex in rural Cambodia (and elsewhere throughout the world) is strongly associated with gender inequality (Yang et  al., 2016). Therefore, Farvid and Saing (2021) endorse the Cambodian’s government’s integration of comprehensive sex education in the Life Skills education program from Grade 4 to Grade 12. This curriculum uses a rights-based approach and was implemented throughout Cambodia in 2019. Another facet of educating rural citizens about woman abuse, regardless of where they live, is providing information about available services for survivors. Then, as Mantler et al.’s (2021, p. 18) Canadian fndings demonstrate, “it is imperative to create a non-judgmental, comfortable environment for disclosure”. At least in the United States, some rural libraries are doing this. Libraries are more accessible in many United States rural communities than are shelters, public transportation and other services. Here are means by which rural librarians (with proper training) can assist survivors (Benson, 2018, p. 71): The librarian . . . could direct the victim to legal assistance and shelter websites, help fnd books and pamphlets of interest to the victim, and potentially, even provide programming for the children if the victim needs time to think

Male violence against women in rural places

75

about . . . her options while doing so. Next, the librarian could help facilitate travel between the library and the shelter (especially if the nearest shelter is in the next county over) and work with police to provide transportation across county lines. Finally, the librarian could help engage with the shelter staf via telephone and arrange for the arrival of the victim and his/her children at the shelter. Copyright librarian and Assistant Professor Sara Benson (2018, p. 71) remarks that “the possibilities for assisting rural victims of domestic abuse at rural libraries are endless”. One of the possibilities she envisions is attorneys giving survivors legal advice in rural public libraries and providing these buildings with information kiosks that include materials on legal issues related to woman abuse. Be that as it may, caution is required. Libraries must be architecturally designed so that survivors cannot be overheard by someone they know, which, in turn, could jeopardise the safety of survivors and their children. The likelihood of this happening in small communities is much greater than in more densely populated places (Websdale, 1998). No educational program is complete without eforts to change men and boys. Many scholars, activists and practitioners in the feld strongly support Saunders’ (2015, p. 154) claim that it is “critical that rural men have a renewed understanding of their sexual harassment so that they can work towards reforming entrenched behavioral patterns and trends”. Rural men also must develop a renewed understanding of other types of violence against women, and there are many programs available that can help, as Saunders (2015, p. 154) puts it, “reinvent male behavior in the rural space”. Entire books, too, have been published on methods of changing violent men, and there are feminist men’s curricula and feminist men’s groups scattered around the world that rural service providers can turn to for assistance. The most common activities of feminist men involve protesting patriarchal laws and policies, giving lectures and workshops, lobbying for services and confronting men who make sexist comments, abuse women and who engage in other patriarchal practices (DeKeseredy, 2019). Regardless of which men’s educational strategies are developed, like any other means of prevention and control, they must be specifcally crafted to meet the unique needs of each rural area (Logan et al., 2004).

Conclusion The “theory of universal risk” of violence against women (Schwartz, 1988, p. 374) was based on a plethora of international research, rejected shortly before the beginning of the twenty-frst century, and it is now widely accepted that some groups of women are at much greater risk than others. Among the highest risk groups are rural women. Yet, there is still much that researchers, practitioners, policy makers, activists, the media and the general public do not know about woman abuse in rural places. Several ways of advancing knowledge are ofered in this chapter, but they are just a few among numerous others suggested in the extant literature. Undoubtedly, new empirical and theoretical contributions will be made in the near

76

Walter S. DeKeseredy

future and they will help answer the question ‘What is to be done about male-tofemale violence in rural and remote places?’. All the same, it is always necessary to keep in mind this point made by Renate Klein (2012, p. 127): “Ending abuse is not only about specialized services delivered by trained individuals. It is perhaps more importantly about ‘humdrum’ cultural change in which everyone does things a little diferently everyday”. Klein’s point is consistent with the philosophy of the Green Dot Violence Intervention Strategy developed by Dorothy Edwards. This involves interactive training to become active bystanders. This approach asks people to visualise a map with green dots spreading across a map of their country, with each one representing an individual action, such as safely taking an intoxicated friend home from a bar or displaying a sexual assault awareness poster in your room or hallway (Greendot.ecetera, 2012). While new scholarly work will always be warmly welcomed, many, if not most, people who study rural woman abuse have already come to the point in their understanding of this global social problem where they can now see the links between brutal assaults and the violations, inequities and injustices that occur every day in families, places of work, in places of recreation and elsewhere in rural communities. These people also know that to reduce male-to-female violence in nonmetropolitan areas and in other places, people must have the courage to change their social structures, cultures and their ways of living, working, loving and playing. The prevention of woman abuse is both a profound act of courage and a dramatic act of revolution. What role will you play?

Notes 1 This is the title of Elizabeth Stanko’s (1990) path-breaking feminist analysis of how women and men manage sexual and physical danger in everyday life. 2 This section includes modifed portions of work published previously by DeKeseredy (2021b). 3 Frank Pearce (1976) is the frst criminologist to use the term ‘crimes of the powerful’ (Bittle et al., 2021), and it is the title of his ground-breaking 1976 book on corporate and organised crime. 4 This section features revised sections of material published previously by DeKeseredy (2021a, 2021c, 2022). 5 See DeKeseredy (2021a, 2021c) for in-depth reviews of these studies. 6 See DeKeseredy (2021a, 2021c) for reviews of studies of these risk factors. 7 This is not to say that feminist scholarly research on the impact of the coronavirus and quarantine on violence is nonexistent. See, for example, Bouillon-Minois et al. (2020). 8 This section includes revised parts of work published previously by DeKeseredy (2021c). 9 This section includes modifed parts of work published previously by DeKeseredy (2021a).

References Beirne, P., & Messserschmidt, J. W. (2014). Criminology: A sociological approach (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Benson, S. R. (2018). Rural librarians and domestic abuse. Domestic Violence Report, 23, 71–72.

Male violence against women in rural places

77

Berk, R. A., Berk, S. F., Loseke, D. R., & Rauma, D. (1983). Mutual combat and other family violence myths. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence research (pp. 197–212). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Bittle, S., Snider, L., Tombs, S., & Whyte, D. (2021). Revisiting crimes of the powerful: An introduction. In S. Bittle, L. Snider, S. Tombs, & D. Whyte (Eds.), Revisiting crimes of the powerful: Marxism, crime and deviance (pp. xxxiii–xlix). London: Routledge. Bouillon-Minois, J. B., Clinchamps, M., & Duthell, F. (2020). Coronavirus and quarantine: Catalysts of domestic violence. Violence against Women (Online frst). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220935194 Brubaker, S. J. (2019). Theorizing gender violence. San Diego, CA: Cognella. Burczycka, M. (2019). Police-reported intimate violence in Canada, 2018. In Statistics Canada (Ed.), Family violence in Canada: A statistical profle (pp. 24–44). Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. Cambridge: Polity. Collins, V. E. (2019). Feminist perspectives on state crimes against women. In W. S. DeKeseredy, C. M. Rennison, & A. K. Hall-Sanchez (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of violence studies (pp. 179–189). London: Routledge. Crenshaw, K. (2000). The intersectionality of race and gender discrimination. Retrieved from www.isiswomen.org/womenet/lists/apgr-list/archive/msg00013.html Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5(4), 497–538. Dastagir, A. E. (2020, March  18). Domestic violence in the age of coronavirus: What happens when you’re stuck at home, but home isn’t safe? USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/03/18/coronavirus-domesticviolence-shelters-prepare-hotlines-open/5067349002/ DeKeseredy, W. S. (1988). Woman abuse in dating relationships: The relevance of social support theory. Journal of Family Violence, 3(1), 1–13. Dekeseredy, W. (2019). Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Sandra Walklate, Jude McCulloch and JaneMaree Maher (eds) (2018) Intimate partner violence, risk and security: Securing women’s lives in a global world. London, UK: Routledge. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 8(4), 137–139. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v8i4.1252 DeKeseredy, W. S. (2020). Preventing violence against women in the heartland. In A. Harkness (Ed.), Rural crime prevention: Theory, tactics and techniques (pp.  133–144). London: Routledge. DeKeseredy, W. S. (2021a). Woman abuse in rural places. London: Routledge. DeKeseredy, W. S. (2021b). Bringing feminist sociological analyses of patriarchy back to the forefront of the study of woman abuse. Violence against Women, 27(5), 621–638. DeKeseredy, W. S. (2021c). Male-to-female sexual violence in rural communities: A sociological review. Dignity: A Journal of Analysis of Exploitation and Violence, 6(2), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.23860/dignity.2021.06.02.07 DeKeseredy, W. S. (2022). Contemporary critical criminology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. DeKeseredy, W. S., Donnermeyer, J. F., Schwartz, M. D., Tunnell, K. D., & Hall, M. (2007). Thinking critically about rural gender relations: Toward a rural masculinity crisis/male peer support model of separation/divorce sexual assault. Critical Criminology, 15(4), 295–311. DeKeseredy, W. S., Muzzatti, S. L., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (2014). Mad men in bib overalls: Media’s horrifcation and pornifcation of rural culture. Critical Criminology, 22(2), 179–197. DeKeseredy, W. S., & Rennison, C. M. (2020). Thinking theoretically about male violence against women in rural places: A review of the extant sociological literature and suggestions for further theorizing. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 5(2), 162–180.

78

Walter S. DeKeseredy

DeKeseredy, W. S., Rogness, M.,  & Schwartz, M. D. (2004). Separation/divorce sexual assault: The current state of social scientifc knowledge. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(6), 675–691. DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (1993). Male peer support and woman abuse: An expansion of DeKeseredy’s model. Sociological Spectrum, 13(4), 393–413. Dewey, S., Zare, B., Connolly, C., Epler, R., & Bratton, R. (2019). Outlaw women: Prison, rural violence, and poverty in the American west. New York: New York University Press. Donnermeyer, J. F. (2020). Social justice and the problematizing of the concept of “rural.” In A. Harkness (Ed.), Rural crime prevention: Theory, tactics and techniques (pp.  19–29). London: Routledge. Ehrenreich, B., & English, D. (1978). For her own good. Garden City, NY: Anchor. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014). Violence against women: An EUwide survey. Luxembourg: Publications Ofce of the European Union. Farvid, P., & Saing, R. (2021). “If I don’t allow him to have sex with me, our relationship will be broken”: Rape, sexual coercion, and sexual compliance within marriage in rural Cambodia. Violence against Women, 28(6-7), 1587–1609. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 10778012211021130 Greendot.ecetera. (2012). The green dot overview. Retrieved from www.livethegreendot.com/ |gd_overview.html Hall-Sanchez, A. K. (2014). Male peer support, hunting, and separation/divorce sexual assault in rural Ohio. Critical Criminology, 22(4), 495–510. Harris, B. (2016). Violent landscapes: A  spatial study. In A. Harkness, B. Harris,  & D. Baker (Eds.), Locating crime in context and place: Perspectives on regional and remote Australia (pp. 70–84). Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Harris, B., & Vitis, L. (2020). Digital intrusions: Technology, spatiality and violence against women. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 4(2), 325–341. Hayden, K. E. (2021). The rural primitive in American popular culture: All to familiar. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefeld. Hunnicutt, G. (2009). Varieties of patriarchy and violence against women: Resurrecting “patriarchy” as a theoretical tool. Violence against Women, 15(5), 553–573. Kelly, L. (1987). The continuum of sexual violence. In J. Hanmer & M. Maynard (Eds.), Women, violence and social control (pp. 46–60). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International. Kelly, L. (1988). Surviving sexual violence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Klein, R. (2012). Responding to intimate violence against women: The role of informal networks. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lave, C., & March, J. G. (1993). An introduction to models in the social sciences. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Logan, T. K., Stevenson, E., Evans, L., & Leukefeld, C. (2004). Rural and urban women’s perceptions to barriers to health, mental health, and criminal justice services: Implications for victim services. Violence and Victims, 19(1), 37–62. Mantler, T., Jackson, K. T., Shillington, K., Walsh, E. J., Tobah, S., Jackson, B., & Davidson, C. A. (2021). Factors infuencing rural women’s disclosure of intimate partner violence: A  qualitative study. SN Social Sciences, 1(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s43545-020-00027-z Miller, E. (2021). Introduction: Radical feminism for the 21st century and beyond. In E. Miller (Ed.), Spinning and weaving: Radical feminism for the 21st century (pp. xv–xxii). Madison, MI: Tidal Time Publishing. Mitchell, K. J., Segura, A., Jones, L. M., & Turner, H. A. (2018). Poly-victimization and peer harassment involvement in a technological world. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(5), 762–788.

Male violence against women in rural places

79

Oliver, P. (2006). Review of the flm country. Retrieved from http://home.hiway.nt/~oliver/ jlcountry.htm Pearce, F. (1976). Crimes of the powerful: Marxism, crime and deviance. London: Pluto Press. Pease, B. (2019). Facing patriarchy: From a violent gender order to a culture of peace. London: Zed Books. Potter, H. (2008). Battle cries: Black women and intimate partner violence. New York: New York University Press. Potter, H. (2015). Intersectionality and criminology: Disrupting and revolutionizing studies of crime. London: Routledge. Pruitt, L. R. (2007). Toward a feminist theory of the rural. Utah Law Review, 2, 421–487. Ptacek, J. (2016). Rape and the continuum of sexual abuse in intimate relationships: Interviews with U.S. women from diferent social classes. In K. Yllo & M. G. Torres (Eds.), Marital rape: Consent, marriage, and social change in global context (pp. 123–138). New York: Oxford University Press. Renzetti, C. M. (2018). Feminist perspectives. In W. S. DeKeseredy  & M. Dragiewicz (Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical criminology (2nd ed., pp. 74–82). London: Routledge. Saunders, S. (2015). Whispers from the bush: The workplace sexual harassment of Australian rural women. Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Schwartz, M. D. (1988). Ain’t got no class: Universal risk theories of battering. Contemporary Crises, 12, 373–392. Smith, J. (2020, April 19). Experts in West Virginia predict trend of nationwide surge in domestic violence cases coinciding with COVID-19 is going to get worse before it gets better. Times West Virginian. Retrieved from https://www.timeswv.com/covid-19/ experts-in-west-virginia-predict-trend-of-nationwide-surge-in-domestic-violencecases-coinciding-with/article_6fc06d10–7c5d-11ea-9763–1333322e3150.html Southall, A. (2020, April 17). Why a drop in domestic violence reports might not be a good sign. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/ nyregion/new-york-city-domestic-violence-coronavirus.html Stanko, E. A. (1990). Everyday violence: How women and men experience sexual and physical danger. London: Pandora. Swedberg, R. (2021). Does speculation belong in social science research? Sociological Methods & Research, 50(1), 45–74. True, J. (2012). The political economy of violence against women. New York: Oxford University Press. Walby, S., Towers, J., Balderston, S., Corradi, C., Francis, B., Heiskanen, M., HelwegLarsen, K., Mergaert, L., Olive, P., Plamer, E., Stockl, H., & Strid, S. (2017). The concept and measurement of violence against women and men. Bristol: Policy Press. Walker, S. (2010). Sense and nonsense about crime, drugs, and communities: A policy guide. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Websdale, N. (1998). Rural woman battering and the justice system: An ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. World Population Review. (2020). West Virginia population 2020. Retrieved from https:// worldpopulationreview.com/states/west-virginia-population/ Wrathall, M., & Herron, R. (2021). Regional service providers’ understandings of rurality and intimate partner violence. Journal of Rural Community Development, 16(2), 138–156. Yang, Y., Lewis, F. M., & Wojnar, D. (2016). Culturally embedded risk factors for Cambodian husband-wife HIV transmission: From women’s point of view. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 48(2), 154–162.

CASE STUDY Rural battered women syndrome

To illustrate the realities and complexities of a rural woman’s victimisation consider the case of Helen Naslund, a married mother of three living on a cattle and sheep farm in rural Alberta, in western Canada, who shot and killed her husband after nearly three decades of his abuse (Frangou, 2021). There are numerous sociological and economic markers that preceded Helen shooting her husband, Miles, with a revolver whilst he was passed out drunk on 5 September 2011. The early years of their marriage coincided with tough economic times and the land which they farmed was not of great quality, jeopardising their livelihood. Although Helen had been sociable earlier in life, she became increasingly withdrawn over time and gave up her pastime of horse riding. Visits to the farm by family and friends became limited or non-existent over time due to Miles’ behaviour. Helen made several suicide attempts. Miles reportedly kept a loaded handgun and would point it as his wife and children if sufciently angry; he drank heavily and was often violent. He would be physically violent, engaging in corporal punishment of his children; he would punch his wife so violently she would fall to the ground leaving her battered and bruised. But, as with many abusive relationships, the abuse was also psychological with all the hallmarks of coercive control: constant demands to know of Helen’s whereabouts, and threats of killing regularly made, such as over meals prepared not to his liking. Helen endured 27 years of abuse at the hands of Miles. Because Helen shot Miles whilst he slept, his killing was not considered selfdefence. The circumstances were further complicated as Helen and one of her sons disposed of the body and gun and misled the police for nearly six years following the death. In October 2020, Helen accepted a plea deal for the lesser charge of manslaughter and was sentenced to 18 years in prison – one of the longest sentences for a woman who killed her husband in the context of abuse. In sentencing

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-10

Male violence against women in rural places

81

remarks, the Judge declared that Helen had ‘other options’ identifying aggravating factors leading to the length of sentence imposed, such as indignities done to the body but with no meaningful reference to Helen’s sustained abuse which in fact reduced her culpability (Sheehy, 2022; Medelsohn Aviv, 2021). An appeal was launched in 2021. The controversial sentence was halved on appeal from 18 to nine years in January 2022 on the grounds that the original sentence refected ‘outdated thinking’ and did not adequately consider the longstanding abuse that Helen had endured (Wakefeld, 2022).

Battered women syndrome, coercive control and rural risk factors In sharp contrast to men, women like Helen Naslund who kill their current or ex-partners typically do so after years of physical, sexual and psychological abuse. ‘Battered woman syndrome’ has been identifed as a form of post-traumatic stress disorder subject to long-term abuse (Medelsohn Aviv, 2021). This case illustrates that ‘battered woman syndrome’ and ongoing coercive control by an intimate partner is accentuated in rural settings. Harris (2016) identifes several relevant rural-specifc issues: geographic, social and mental isolation are most certainly signifcant. Distances between settlements creates a high degree of physical isolation – and thus also a lack of ‘capable guardianship’, to borrow from the crime prevention literature. Social isolation and a sense of being trapped, with nowhere to go, permeates the day-to-day life of rural victims. Factors such as tradition, masculinity, gender constructs and unequal power relations might be more profound in rural areas. And this, combined with a paucity of support and other services – or at least the enhanced difculty in accessing these – accentuates the feeling of, and indeed the reality of, isolation. Some may ask – why did she not just leave? Leading experts in the feld have data-driven answers to this question. Women who leave abusive relationships may be in more danger than women who stay in them. Ms. Naslund did attempt to leave on numerous occasions but feared for her and her children’s safety. A woman’s risk of being killed by an abusive man increases six-fold after she leaves. This risk may be amplifed in rural settings due to geographic distance from help if intercepted whilst leaving, as well as ready access to weapons such as frearms. Guns are a farm tool for eradicating pest animals and euthanising livestock, but they can also serve as an omnipresent threat of violence against humans, and psychologically as well against family pets. So, the question ‘why did she stay?’ would be best directed toward ‘what kept her from leaving?’. Helen Naslund’s sustained abuse is but one example of battered woman syndrome which highlights the impact of rurality on womens’ victimisation and the inability to leave an abusive relationship with no other option for survival than self-defense.

82

Walter S. DeKeseredy

References Frangou, C. (2021, July 26). The story of the Alberta woman who got 18 years for killing her abusive husband. Chatelaine. Retrieved from https://www.chatelaine.com/living/ helen-naslund/ Harris, B. (2016). Violent landscapes: A spatial study of family violence. In A. Harkness, B. Harris, & D. Baker (Eds.), Locating crime in context and place: Perspectives on regional, rural and remote Australia. Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Medelsohn Aviv, N. (2021, July 21). Domestic violence for 27 years and an 18 year jail term for Helen Naslund. Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Retrieved from https://ccla.org/ equality/domestic-violence-for-27-years-and-an-18-year-jail-term-for-helen-naslund/ Sheehy, W. (2022, January 13). Helen Naslund appeal ofers a look into how justice system fails women who kills their abusers. Toronto Star. Retrieved from https://www. thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2022/01/13/helen-naslund-appeal-offers-alook-into-how-justice-system-fails-women-who-kill-their-abusers.html Wakefeld, J. (2022, January 12). Rejecting ‘outdated thinking,’ Alberta court halves Helen Naslund’s 18-year sentence for killing abusive husband. Edmonton Journal. Retrieved from https://edmontonjournal.com/news/crime/court-of-appeal-cuts-helen-naslunds18-year-sentence-for-killing-abusive-husband-to-nine-years

7 VICTIMS WITH DISABILITIES IN RURAL AREAS Marg Camilleri

Crime victims with disabilities residing in rural areas have been a largely neglected group in the literature to date (Camilleri, 2019; Donnermeyer, 2019). Indeed, apart from the consistent voices of people with disabilities, advocates and a comparatively small cohort of researchers, the experiences and prevalence of victimisation of disabled people have been relegated to the periphery of victimisation discourse until a comparatively recent shift in focus. In Australia, the research landscape, particularly since 2010, has changed, coinciding with an increased interest in the experiences of people with disabilities seeking access to justice after experiencing violence or other crimes. The proliferation of reports from government inquiries, Royal Commissions and other bodies – encouraged by disabled people and allies – have fuelled the discourse in this area (AHRC, 2014; Civil Society, 2012; DoJR, 2016; Dowse et al., 2021; Law Council of Australia, 2018; Parliament of Victoria, 2016; PWDA, 2014; Royal Commission into Family Violence, 2016; Senate Community Afairs References Committee, 2015; VEOHRC, 2014; Victorian Ombudsman, 2015; Victorian Law Reform Commission, 2004). As an emerging area, the representation of the victimisation and access to justice needs of disabled people when viewed from the perspective of location is often generalised and urban-centric, largely ignoring the nuanced experiences of disabled people in rural locations. The overarching aims of this chapter are three-fold: frst, to shed light on the nuanced experiences of people with disability as crime victims within the context of rurality; second, to argue that rurality and the justice system be considered as intersectional dimensions, which further limit how victims of crime with disabilities experience the justice system; and third, to assess how the justice system itself responds diferentially to people with disability by questioning their capacity and credibility, and preferencing specifc forms of communication over others, rendering some disabled as ‘easy targets’ of violence and other forms of victimisation.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-11

84

Marg Camilleri

To realise these aims, this chapter will use the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) to explore how disability is defned and how the rights of disabled people are understood within a human rights framework. It will refect broadly on the prevalence of victimisation of disabled people and the challenges experienced by disabled people in accessing justice. The chapter will then draw on available Australian and international literature to collectively bring to the fore the experiences of disabled people residing in rural locations who are victims of crime victims. Also canvassed will be the language associated with the concept of disability, and consideration will be given to the nuanced experiences and explanations of crime perpetrated against disabled people and whether these can be captured within current theoretical discourse. The chapter is accompanied by a case study which draws on the experiences of three participants whose interactions with the justice system are extracted from a larger study – including the lived experiences of people with complex communication needs (CCN) and their interactions with the justice system – to identify inconsistencies in responses from justice agencies, and to highlight the additional barriers experienced by disabled people residing in rural locations who seek to access the justice system.

Human rights frame: defning disability and the rights to access justice for victims/survivors Defnitions of the term ‘disability’ vary across jurisdictions. For the purposes of this chapter, the defnition provided by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability (CRPD) will be adopted. The CRPD serves as a global framework within which disability is understood (UN, 2010, Article 1): Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and efective participation in society on an equal basis with others. Implicit within this defnition is the distinction between ‘disability’ and ‘impairment’: the former referring to the experience of a disabling environment; and the latter to the impact on the individual. Throughout this chapter, the term ‘disabled people’ will be used to refer to people who have been disabled by and through their interaction with the justice system. It is widely acknowledged that to be disabled is to be impacted by structural barriers and impediments which restrict and or deny the full participation of a person living with an impairment (Oliver, 1990; Kayess & French, 2008; Ziegler, 2020). It is also important to acknowledge that people with disabilities are not a homogenous group. While individuals may share the same diagnostic labels, their embodied experiences may well difer. Also contained in the CRPD are Article 12 ‘Equal recognition before the law’ and Article 13 ‘Access to justice’ (UN, 2010) which specifcally relate to the

Victims with disabilities in rural areas

85

autonomy and legal capacity of people with disability. More recently, the United Nations (2020) released the ‘International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities’. The ten guidelines further articulate the importance of Articles 12 and 13 (United Nations, 2020, p. 11), providing strategies to: assist States and other actors to design, develop, modify and implement justice systems that provide equal access to justice for all persons with disabilities, regardless of their roles in the process, in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The strategies provide tangible actions through which countries can seek to safeguard the rights of people with disabilities who interact with the justice system to increase access to justice. Within this chapter, the phrase ‘access to justice’ refers to a “broad concept encompassing people’s access to the systems, procedures, information and locations used in the administration of justice” (Ortoleva, 2011, p. 283), as each one of these “systems, procedures, information and locations” can, at any point, impede access to justice for disabled people. Access to justice also refers to active participation in the justice system, “to feel included in the process of accessing and receiving justice” (Aylwin & Moore, 2015, p. 23). Most typically, the phrase ‘access to justice’ is used when referring to the fair and equitable treatment of an accused person. One explanation for the limited use of the phrase when referring to victims in the adversarial system of justice is that victims are not participants in criminal proceedings; rather, victims are relegated to a position of a witness without a clearly defned role (VLRC, 2016). Importantly however, as calls for victim participatory rights grow louder, the role of victims in the adversarial justice system has evolved – and continues to do so (VLRC, 2016) – acknowledging that victims do indeed have an interest as participants in criminal proceedings.

Terminology matters Identifying a term or phrase which adequately refects a cohort of people in the community is neither simple nor straight froward. There is little consensus internationally, or at an individual or group level, on the use of terms which represent the experiences or identities of disabled people. A quick scan of the internet sites of disability groups internationally suggests that preferences for particular terms vary. In Australia and the United States, for example, the use of the term ‘people with disabilities’ acknowledges the person frst and disability last as a deliberate move away from the stigmatising language of the medical model which placed the disability as central rather than the individual (Ziegler, 2020; People with Disability Australia, 2014); ‘people living with impairments’ acknowledges the personal impact of an impairment (as compared to the disabling constructed environment) (Thomas, 2004). In England and Europe (see Disabled People International),

86

Marg Camilleri

the term ‘disabled’ is used frst to highlight the impact of the disabling environment. Terms which refect the difering experience of disability have developed in other international contexts: for example, ‘difable’ or ‘difability’ are terms which, according to Suharto and colleagues (2016), have been adopted in Asia, to emphasise the diversity of experiences of impairment or disability. In an attempt to appropriately contribute to the discourse in this chapter, variations of the terms ‘disabled people’, and ‘[dis]abled people’ are utilised; both informed by the Social Model of Disability (Oliver, 1990) and refecting the CRPD defnition as described previously, to acknowledge a disability as being constructed and perpetuated by the disabling environment (Shakespeare, 2013).

Theorising victimisation of people with disabilities: a diferential model? Broadly, victimological theoretical perspectives have focused on either the micro – individual characteristics of victims – or on the macro – infuences of structural oppression – to better understand victimisation of specifc cohorts in the community. Walklate et al. (2019, p. 201) describes these two broad groups as representing a “structurally neutral victim” or a “structurally informed” perspective. An example of the structurally neutral victim approach is the routine activity theory initiated by Cohen and Felson (1979), which has been more recently explored in regard to victims with disabilities. Reyns and Scherer (2019, p. 651) suggest that “disability status can increase individuals’ risks for stalking victimization”. Bones (2013) has previously added another dimension to routine activity theory, exploring a ‘target characteristics’ approach. This nuanced theory suggests that perpetrators are motivated by the visible “signifer of disability [which] conveys a sense of a vulnerability” (Bones, 2013, p. 344). In comparison, the ‘structurally informed’ perspective includes theories such as feminist theory and other critical perspectives which apply an overarching lens of unequal relationships constructed within dominant political, social and economic structures which perpetuate the status quo and power disparities (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 2010). Rock (2018) reminds us that there is no single theory which explains the experience of victimisation. However, given that victimology is an under theorised area, there is much more that can be developed to better understand victimisation and the impacts thereof. The risk of victimisation is heightened for people with disabilities (Henshaw & Thomas, 2012). While there are similarities with respect to the impact of victimisation across victim/survivor cohorts, the experience of victimisation and attempts to seek redress can be compounded by “multiple, intersecting inequalities” (Anthias, 2013, p. 3) such as race, gender and class, which represent distinct sources of oppression and subordination – and which collectively converge to alter the experience of victimisation (Crenshaw, 1991) and attempts to access justice. The overarching structural oppression experienced by people with disabilities adds another intersectional dimension (Garland-Thomson, 1997). The impact of structural oppression,

Victims with disabilities in rural areas

87

when discussed in broad terms, belies the diferential impact of structural oppression at an individual level. The experience of disability is multi-layered, and the experiences of disabled people in accessing justice are similarly layered. The justice system as a formal structure adds another level of oppression which further compounds inequities in race, gender and class. As Edwards (2013, p. 312) suggests, for people with disabilities in the justice system there is a convergence of “ ‘adversarial spaces’ – spaces in which negative legal identities conferred upon people with disabilities converge with inaccessible environments and procedures”. Edwards (2013) warns of the danger of focusing on the personal characteristics of impairment, which pathologises people with disabilities rather than the impact of structural barriers. The proposition made here is the need for a diferential criminological and victimological theoretical perspective which is multilayered in its understanding of the multiplicity of ways in which structural barriers are experienced. A theory which acknowledges at one level that people living with impairments all experience structural barriers that impede access to justice, and further seeks to understand and refect the nuanced individual experiences which disproportionally and adversely afects some people with disability diferently. For example, impairments which afect hearing, vision, mobility or cognitive function are experienced very diferently (Campbell, 2001) and the response from the justice system should also be diferent. People with cognitive impairment, or who use augmentative and alternative communication, have diferential experiences of accessing justice compared with another person for whom building design renders courts and police stations inaccessible. All are disabled by the structural barriers of the justice system, yet the result of these experiences can serve to limit or completely deny access to justice. As Kilcommins and Donnelly (2014, p. 306) have argued previously when discussing criminal justice policy and legislative responses to victims with disabilities, considering the needs of victims with disabilities in the justice system is overdue, and the risk is that a broad approach and understanding of victimhood efectively “conceal[s] the multiplicity of experiences of victimhood and of interactions with the criminal justice system”. This chapter postulates that an ableist hierarchy of victims is used regularly at various levels and stages of the justice system to determine a person’s capacity or perceived lack of capacity to be a ‘good witness’. The level at which justice is accessible will depend on where a person is placed on the hierarchy. The position on the hierarchy will be informed by an ‘ableist benchmark’ (Camilleri, 2010). The more ‘able’ the person is perceived to be, the more accessible is the justice system for that person. The implications of a justice system which is rendered inaccessible to victims with disabilities is that such inequities lead to people with disabilities being perceived as ‘vulnerable’ and ‘easy targets’ of victimisation, potentially allowing perpetrators to continue to ofend with impunity (United Nations, 2020). The research is clear that people with disabilities are over-represented as victims of crime, yet they are under-represented in their quest to seek access to justice (Brownridge, 2006; Thorneycroft  & Asquith, 2021). Despite this over-representation,

88

Marg Camilleri

theoretical explorations of the experiences of people disabled by ableist structural barriers have been previously overlooked by feminist theory (Garland-Thomson, 1997) and criminological theory (Dowse et  al., 2009; Thorneycroft  & Asquith, 2021; Dowse et  al., 2021). Blind spots in criminological theory were similarly identifed by scholars including DeKeseredy and Schwartz (2009), who suggest that criminology theory has been gender blind. There is room for further exploration of the nexus between ableism and criminology/ victimology. What is much needed is a theoretical stance which brings together criminological or victimological perspectives with a specifc theory of disability, one which efectively captures the interplay between the embodied experience of diference and the layered structural barriers that create a diferential experience of disablement. Furthermore, to focus solely on overarching structural barriers – at the expense of the nuanced individual experience of these barriers – reinforces the perceptions of homogeneity often applied to people with disability. The structural and nuanced diferential experienced are inextricably linked.

People with disabilities as victims/survivors of crime The prevalence of data recording crimes perpetrated against people with disabilities, collected by primary sources, is increasing in Australia (such as by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016; and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) as well as in various international contexts. These data sets provide a wealth of information in a previously vacuous space, although the data may at times lack nuance and some data collection methods – such as telephone surveys of households – present limitations with regard to victims with disabilities. The information provided is dependent on the person who answers the call and agrees to take the survey and, as such, the survey may exclude many people with disabilities owing to either communication or cognitive impairments, and indeed owing to the place in which a person with a disability resides. For example, people with disabilities who reside in residential services (supported accommodation) are unlikely to be included in wellbeing and or safety surveys. This not only raises the question about data collection but also about the crimes perpetrated against people with disabilities in various spaces. People with disabilities across international jurisdictions are disproportionally overrepresented as victims of crime compared to other members of society (Brownridge, 2006; Edwards et al., 2012; Maher et al., 2018). In particular, the data suggest that incidents of sexual assault, assault and family violence are experienced at much higher rates by people with disabilities (men and women). Genderbased violence is experienced at higher rates again for women with disabilities compared to men with disabilities (Bartlett & Mears, 2011; Ozemela et al., 2019). A  Well-being and Safety of Women survey in South-East Europe and Eastern Europe (UNFPA, 2020) acknowledges that women and girls with disability experience a greater prevalence of gender-based violence than women without disability. Despite the over representation, people with disabilities will most likely experience barriers gaining access to the justice system.

Victims with disabilities in rural areas

89

Access to justice disabled Barriers experienced by victims with disabilities (particularly victims with cognitive impairments) which have negative repercussions on access to justice and potential case outcomes have been documented in the international peer reviewed literature (Edwards, 2013; Ortoleva  & Lewis, 2012; Kilcommins  & Donnelly, 2014) and grey literature (AHRC, 2014; Dowse et al., 2021; VEOHRC, 2014). The fndings documented describe justice agencies, systems and processes which struggle to respond efectively and equitably to people with disabilities. The consequence of this struggle is the creation of barriers which diminish, or in some instances exclude, participation in the justice system (Camilleri & Pedersen, 2019; Dowse et  al., 2021; Kilcommins  & Donnelly, 2014; Murray  & Heenan, 2012). Importantly, the experiences shared by victims with disabilities across national and international jurisdictions are evidence of both commonly held negative perceptions about people with disabilities and the underlying limitations of justice systems to respond in ways that are inclusive and equitable. Police are the ‘gatekeepers’ (Tasca et  al., 2013) at the entrance of the justice system. Discretion used by the police at the point of frst report of an alleged crime determines which cases might enter the justice system and which do not. The experience of such discretionary decisions will vary from police station to police station (Camilleri, 2010; VEOHRC, 2014; Dowse et al., 2021). Discretionary decisions are informed by prejudicial or discriminatory perceptions about the disability by an individual police ofcer or the most senior person at the station whose perceptions about disability will continue to perpetuate negative responses (Camilleri, 2008, 2010; VEOHRC, 2014; Dowse et al., 2021). Victims with disabilities share similar concerns about reporting gendered crimes – such as intimate partner violence, family violence or sexual assault – as do other victims of such crimes. Victims/survivors of gendered based crimes are all susceptible to the same myths and stereotypes which are refected within the general community and our justice system (Ortoleva  & Lewis, 2012). However, victims/survivors with disabilities face additional barriers to reporting or access to justice systems which are specifc to disability. The barriers reducing access to the justice system for victims with disabilities include: • • • • • •

a perceived lack of credibility and unreliability (Camilleri, 2008) previous negative experiencing of reporting crime (Maher et al., 2018; RCFV, 2016; UNFPA, 2020; VEOHRC, 2014) information and communication which is inaccessible in format and language (AHRC, 2014; Spaan & Kaal, 2019; United Nations, 2016; VEOHRC, 2014) a lack of awareness of disability amongst law enforcement agencies (Bartlett & Mears, 2011; Camilleri, 2019; Fitzsimons et al., 2011) physical barriers in justice buildings (United Nations, 2016) a lack of communication accommodation (United Nations, 2016)

90

Marg Camilleri

Common negative experiences of justice systems as experienced by disabled people are evident across the world, including in Africa (United Nations, 2016), Ireland (Bartlett & Mears, 2011; Edwards et al., 2012), Eastern Europe (UNFPA, 2020), the United States (Fitzsimons et al., 2011), Latin America and the Caribbean (Ozemela et al., 2019) and Australia (AHRC, 2014; Camilleri, 2008; Maher et al., 2018; VEOHRC, 2014). This is demonstrative of the structural challenges and inequities which confront disabled people and the need for transformative change.

Rural dimensions Rurality adds further complexity to the experiences of people with disabilities who are crime victims. Such experiences, while unique to rural settings, do not imply homogeneity across all rural settings. Rural towns, irrespective of their population size and proximity to capital cities, are diferent, owing to a range of other factors such as community cohesion and government resourcing (Coverdale, 2011). For example, literature pertaining to gendered violence in rural settings suggests that the context of rurality will compound feelings of shame, fear and isolation (Farhall et  al., 2020) and shape the response and outcomes of gendered crimes (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2009; George & Harris, 2014; Pruitt, 2008). The diverse experiences of rural life, including of people with disabilities, adds an important yet mostly overlooked dimension to the experiences of disabled people who are victims of crime. Rurality as an intersectional dimension informs how people experience victimisation, their disability within the context of a rural community and their experience of accessing justice within the context of space and disadvantage (Coverdale, 2011). To date, the literature pertaining to the victimisation experiences of people with disabilities has focused on violence in specifc settings (Attard & Price-Kelly, 2010; Frohmader & Sands, 2015), about victims with specifc types of impairments (Fogden et al., 2016; Camilleri & Pedersen, 2019; Spaan & Kaal, 2019), victims of gendered crimes (Brownridge, 2006; Dowse et al., 2013; Du Mont & Forte, 2014; McCarthy et al., 2017; Ozemela et al., 2019) or broadly about victims with disabilities, without or with only little reference to urban or rural locations. Conversely, there is a dearth of literature on crime in rural settings refecting the experiences of people with disabilities.

Impediments to justice in the rural The Australian and international literature agree that rurality presents obstacles which impede access to justice and achieving just outcomes for people residing in rural locations, compared to their urban counterparts. These obstacles include: •

the distance required to access advocacy, legal services and courts, and limited availability of transport (DeKeseredy, 2019; United Nations, 2016; Fitzsimons et al., 2011; George & Harris, 2014; Law Council of Australia, 2018; Pruitt & Showman, 2014; Pruitt et al., 2018)

Victims with disabilities in rural areas

• •

• •

91

limited internet access and telephone coverage, which can exacerbate the feeling of isolation (LCA, 2018; Pruitt et al., 2018) fewer resources (such as justice agencies, support and advocacy services) characteristic of rural areas (Coverdale, 2011; George & Harris, 2014; Law Council of Australia, 2018; Pruitt, 2008; United Nations, 2016) which can be further pronounced post disaster (Hale et al., 2021) lack of access to language interpreters (Law Council of Australia, 2018) rurality limits help seeking behaviour of ‘how, when, and why people may or may not seek help’ (Aylwin & Moore, 2015, p. 37)

Coverdale (2011) refers to the diferential and inequitable access to the justice system as ‘postcode justice’. The implications of justice systems which are experienced diferentially by people residing in rural locations are further compounded for people with disabilities. Despite the obvious dearth of literature on the experiences of victims with disabilities in rural areas, pleasingly there are several studies across international settings (Aylwin & Moore, 2015 which have focused either primarily (Fitzsimons et al., 2011 or partially (Ortoleva & Lewis, 2012; George & Harris, 2014) on people with disabilities residing in rural locations. As alluded to earlier in this chapter, the experience of disability is not generalisable across the rural scape or among all people with disabilities; however, rurality and disability can be a source of stigmatisation for people with ‘physical or mental illness’, who experience higher levels of familiarity which in turn reduces privacy (Aylwin & Moore, 2015). The marginalising intersectional dimensions of rurality, disability and gender can be felt keenly, in particular by increasing the risk of victimisation (Ortoleva & Lewis, 2012), and as Fitzsimons and colleagues (2011, p. 168) contend, the convergence of these triadic intersectional dimensions “contribute to increased risk and compounds the barriers to ending victimization” and can infuence help seeking decisions (George  & Harris, 2014, p. xx). For example, the relationships in rural settings can result in a woman being reluctant to report to the local police ofcer who may be a friend or know the perpetrator. There could also be a fear in small communities of disclosing family violence where you and the perpetrator are known, as the perpetrator may fnd out. Lastly, fnding a service, which understands and is equipped to respond appropriately to various disabilities may be impossible in rural communities or indeed some regional communities, particularly where there is a dependence on the perpetrator for care and or communication. Broadly, the multiple and overarching barriers for people with disabilities residing in rural areas across various countries in Africa are similarly applicable to Australia, the United States, Canada and indeed other countries across the world. According to the United Nations’ (2016, p. 6) report about various African countries: [o]verarching barriers, which can be compounded for those living in rural areas or in socio-economically disadvantaged situations, or for those facing multiple forms of discrimination, include (1) Legal barriers; (2) Attitudinal barriers; (3) Information and communication barriers; (4) Physical barriers; and (5) Economic barriers.

92

Marg Camilleri

A study by Camilleri and Pedersen (2019) suggests that access to justice for some people with disabilities is further impacted by a lack of resources and training of law enforcement to respond efectively and equitably. Such impediments result in diferential treatment and inconsistent responses to people with disabilities in rural areas. Although systems of justice in some jurisdictions have made inroads through the development of specifc accommodations (such as intermediary programs which provide communication assistance) to increase access to justice for disabled victims, justice systems are inherently ableist institutions.

Conclusion Despite disabled people being disproportionally overrepresented as victims of crime, they face barriers in accessing the justice system. Factors such as previous negative reporting experiences and lack of accommodations, including physical access or communication adjustments, refect inaccessible justice for disabled victims. Importantly, the factors which inhibit access to justice for disabled victims of crime are not unique to any one society; rather, these experiences are refected in many locations internationally. The impacts of rurality, and indeed of the justice system, are in themselves specifc dimensions which uniquely and collectively oppress victims of crime with disabilities. Moreover, disabled people who are victims of crime are diferentially treated by the justice system. In its response to disabled victims of crime, the justice system applies an ‘ableist hierarchy’ against which credibility and reliability is assessed. At times, such ‘assessments’ apply generalised assumptions pertaining to disability type, to determine the potential for victims to be a good witness. Such ‘assessments’ disproportionately afect disabled victims of crime with cognitive impairment and complex communication needs and may potentially create further inequalities on disabled victims in rural areas owing to the lack of training and resources. As this chapter has demonstrated, there are signifcant inequities that exist for disabled victims of crime, inequities which are magnifed for victims of crime in rural spaces. Further scholarship and theory building which draws upon the perspectives of disabled people in rural places will help to unpack the implications and build evidence which leads to structural and practice reform and which ultimately deliver a more equitable and responsive justice system response.

References Anthias, F. (2013). Intersectional what? Social divisions, intersectionality and levels of analysis. Ethnicities, 13(1), 3–19. Attard, M., & Price-Kelly, S. (2010). Accommodating violence: The experience of domestic violence and people with disability living in licensed boarding houses. Redfern, NSW: People with Disability Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2016). Personal safety survey. Cat 4906.0. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4906.0

Victims with disabilities in rural areas

93

Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). (2014). Equal before the law: Towards disability justice strategies. Retrieved from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/equal-law-towardsdisability-justice-strategies Aylwin, N., & Moore, L. (2015). Rural & remote access to justice: A literature review. The Rural and Remote Access to Justice Boldness Project. Toronto, ON: Canadian Forum on Civil Justice. Retrieved from https://boldnessproject.ruralandremoteaccesstojustice.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/Rural-Remote-Lit-Review_newcoverpage.pdf Bartlett, H., & Mears, E. (2011). Sexual violence against people with disabilities: Data collection and barriers to disclosure. Dublin: Rape Crisis Network Ireland. Retrieved from https://www. lenus.ie/handle/10147/231913 Bones, P. D. C. (2013). Perceptions of vulnerability: A target characteristics approach to disability, gender, and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 34(9), 727–750. Brownridge, D. (2006). Partner violence against women with disabilities: Prevalence, risk, and explanations. Violence against Women, 12(9), 805–22. Camilleri, M. (2008, September  23–24). Enabling justice. Paper presented at the National Victims of Crime Conference ‘New Ways Forward – Pathways to Change’, Adelaide. Retrieved from http://library.aic.gov.au/cgi-bin/koha/opac-search.pl?idx=&q=Camilleri Camilleri, M. (2010). [Dis]Abled justice: Why reports of sexual assault made by adults with cognitive impairment fail to proceed through the justice system. Doctoral thesis. Ballarat, VIC: University of Ballarat. Camilleri, M. (2019). Disabled in rural Victoria: Exploring the intersection of victimisation, disability and rurality on access to justice. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 5(1), 88–112. Camilleri, M., & Pedersen, C. (2019). Hear us: The experiences of persons with complex communication needs in accessing justice. Ballarat, VIC: Federation University Australia. Retrieved from https://www.lsbc.vic.gov.au/documents/Report-Federation_University_Australia_ Marg_Camilleri_Complex_Communication_Needs-2019.pdf Campbell, F. K. (2001). Inciting legal fctions: ‘Disability’s’ date with ontology and the ableist body of law. Grifth University Review. Retrieved from https://research-repository. grifth.edu.au/handle/10072/3714 Civil Society. (2012). Disability rights now: Civil Society report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.advokit.org.au/wp content/uploads/2013/06/CRPD_Civil_Society_Report_PDF.pdf Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. Coverdale, R. (2011). Postcode justice: Rural and regional disadvantage in the administration of the law in Victoria. Deakin Law Review, 16(1), 155–187. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299 DeKeseredy, W. (2019). Intimate violence against rural women: The current state of sociological knowledge. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 4(2), 1–21 DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (2009). Dangerous exits escaping abusive relationships in rural America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Department of Justice and Regulation (DoJR). (2016). Access to justice review: Summary report and recommendations. Melbourne, VIC: Government of Victoria. Retrieved from https:// s3.ap-southeast 2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.vicengage.fles/9814/8601/7130/ Access_to_Justice_Review_-_Summary_and_recommendations.PDF Donnermeyer, J. F. (2019). The international emergence of rural criminology: Implications for the development and revision of criminological theory for rural contexts. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 5(1), 1–18.

94

Marg Camilleri

Dowse, l., Baldry, E., & Snoyman, P. (2009). Disabling criminology: Conceptualising the intersections of critical disability studies and critical criminology for people with mental health and cognitive disabilities in the criminal justice system. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 15(1), 29–46. Dowse, L., Rowe, S., Baldry, E., & Baker, M. (2021). Research report: Police responses to people with disability. Royal Commission into Violence, abuse Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government. Retrieved from https://disability. royalcommission.gov.au/system/fles/2021-10/Research%20Report%20-%20Police% 20responses%20to%20people%20with%20disability.pdf Dowse, L., Soldatic, K., Didi, A., Frohmader, C., & van Toorn, G. (2013). Stop the violence: Addressing violence against women and girls with disabilities in Australia (Background paper). Retrieved from https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:36865 Du Mont, J.,  & Forte, T. (2014). Intimate partner violence among women with mental health-related activity limitations: A  Canadian population based study. BMC Public Health, 14(51), 1–9. Retrieved from https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/ counter/pdf/10.1186/1471-2458-14-51.pdf Edwards, C. (2013). Spacing access to justice: Geographical perspectives on disabled people’s interaction with the criminal justice system as victims of crime. Area, 45(3), 307–313. Edwards, C. (2014). Pathologising the victim: Law and the construction of people with disabilities as victims of crime in Ireland. Disability and Society, 29(5), 685–698. Edwards, C., Harold, G., & Kilcommins, S. (2012). Access to justice for people with disabilities as victims of crime in Ireland. Dublin: National Disability Authority. Retrieved from https:// cora.ucc.ie/handle/10468/6966 Farhall, K., Harris, B., & Woodlock, D. (2020). The impact of rurality on women’s ‘space for action’ in domestic violence: Findings from a meta-synthesis. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 5(2), 181–203. Fitzsimons, N. M., Hagemeister, A. K., & Braun, E. J. (2011). Interpersonal violence against people with disabilities: Understanding the problem from a rural context. Journal of Social Work in Disability and Rehabilitation, 10(3), 166–188. Fogden, B. C., Thomas, S. D. M., Dafern, M., & Oglof, J. R. P. (2016). Crime and victimisation in people with intellectual disability: A  case linkage study. BMC Psychiatry, 16, Article 170. Frohmader, C., & Sands, T. (2015). Submission to Senate inquiry into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings. Australian Cross Disability Alliance. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore. ashx?id=3ec383d3-7f51-4029-b9f6-8c6718d4cf31&subId=401199 Garland-Thomson, R. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disabilities in American culture and literature. New York: Columbia University Press. George, A., & Harris, B. (2014). Landscapes of violence: Women surviving family violence in rural and regional Victoria. Geelong, VIC: Centre for Rural and Regional Law and Justice, Deakin University. Hale, R., Stewart-North, M., & Harkness, A. (2021). Post-disaster access to justice. In A. Harkness & R. White (Eds.), Crossroads of rural crime (pp. 167–179). Bingley: Emerald. Henshaw, M., & Thomas, S. (2012). Police encounters with people with intellectual disability: Prevalence, characteristics and challenges. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(6), 620–631. Kayess, R., & French, P. (2008). Out of the darkness into the light? Introducing the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Human Rights Law Review, 8(1), 1–34. Kilcommins, S., & Donnelly, M. (2014). Victims of crime with disabilities in Ireland: Hidden casualties in the ‘vision of victim as everyman’. International Review of Victimology, 20(3), 305–325.

Victims with disabilities in rural areas

95

Law Council of Australia. (2018). Access to justice. The Justice Project fnal report – Part 1. Canberra, ACT: Law Council of Australia. Retrieved from https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/ justice-project/fnal-report Maher, J. M., Spivakovsky, C., McCulloch, J., McGowan, J., Beavis, K., Lea, M., Cadwallader, J., & Sands, T. (2018). Women, disability and violence: Barriers to accessing justice: Final report (ANROWS Horizons, 02/2018). Sydney, NSW: ANROWS. McCarthy, M., Hunt, S.,  & Milne-Skillman, K. (2017). ‘I know it was every week, but I can’t be sure if it was every day’: Domestic violence and women with learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30(2), 269–282. Murray, S., & Heenan, M. (2012). Reported rapes in Victoria: Police responses to victims with a psychiatric disability of mental health issue. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 23(3), 253–268. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Ortoleva, S. (2011). Inaccessible justice: Human rights, persons with disabilities and the legal system. ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, 17(297), 281–320. Ortoleva, S., & Lewis, H. (2012). Forgotten sisters: A report on violence against women with disabilities: An overview of its nature, scope, causes and consequences. Retrieved from https:// womenenabled.org/pdfs/OrtolevaStephanieLewisHopeetalForgottenSisters-AReportonViolenceAgainstWomenGirlswithDisabilitiesAugust202012.pdf-intersectionality Ozemela, L. M. G., Ortiz, D., & Urban, A. (2019). Violence against women and girls with disabilities: Latin America and the Caribbean (Policy Brief No. IDB-PB-302). Inter-American Development Bank. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0001581 Parliament of Victoria. (2016). Family and community development committee inquiry into abuse in disability services fnal report. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian State Government. Retrieved from https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/fle_uploads/FCDC__Inquiry_into_abuse_in_ disability_services_HtW37zgf.pdf People with Disability Australia. (2014). Submission to Senate inquiry into the prevalence of diferent types of speech, language and communication disorders and speech pathology services in Australia. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=230736588672-4905-978c-8e6f1a4a0130&subId=251545 Pruitt, L. R. (2008). Place matters: Domestic violence and rural diference. Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society, 23(2), 347–416. Pruitt, L. R., Kool, A., Sudeall, L., Statz, M., Conway, D., & Haksgaard, H. (2018). Legal deserts: A multi-state perspective on rural access to justice. Harvard Law and Policy Review, 13, 15–156 (Georgia State University College of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2019–01). Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3198411 Pruitt, L. R., & Showman, B. (2014). Law stretched thin: Access to justice in rural America. South Dakota Law Review, 59(466), UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 391, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2480748 Reyns, B. W., & Scherer, H. (2019). Disability type and risk of sexual and stalking victimization in a national sample: A lifestyle – routine activity approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(4), 628–647. Rock, P. (2018). Theoretical perspective on victimisation. In S. Walklate (Ed.), Handbook of victims and victimology (2nd ed., pp. 30–58). London: Routledge. Royal Commission into Family Violence. (2016). Summary and recommendations report. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Government. Retrieved from http://fles.rcfv.com.au/Reports/ Final/RCFV-All-Volumes.pdf Senate Community Afairs References Committee. (2015). Violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings, including the gender and age-related dimensions, and the particular situation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, and culturally and linguistically diverse people with disability. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.

96

Marg Camilleri

Shakespeare, T. (2013). The social model of disability. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (pp. 214–221). New York: Routledge. Spaan, N. A., & Kaal, H. L. (2019). Victims with mild intellectual disabilities in the criminal justice system. Journal of Social Work, 19(1), 60–82. Steinberg, S.,  & Kincheloe, J. (2010). Power, emancipation, and complexity: Employing critical theory. Power and Education, 2(2), 140–152. Suharto, S., Kuipers, P., & Dorsett, P. (2016). Disability terminology and the emergence of ‘difability’ in Indonesia. Disability and Society, 31(5), 693–712. Tasca, M., Rodgriguez, N., Spohn, C., & Koss, M. P. (2013). Police decision making in sexual assault cases: Predictors of suspect identifcation and arrest. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(6), 1157–1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512468233 Thomas, C. (2004). How is disability understood? An examination of sociological approaches. Disability and Society, 19(6), 569–583. Thorneycroft, R., & Asquith, N. (2021). Cripping criminology. Theoretical Criminology, 25(2), 187–208. UNFPA. (2020). Violence against women living with disabilities in south-east and Eastern Europe: Evidence brief based on OSCE-led Survey on the Well-being and Safety of Women in SouthEast Europe and Eastern Europe. UNFPA. Retrieved from https://eeca.unfpa.org/en/ publications/violence-against-women-living-disabilities-south-east-and-eastern-europe United Nations. (2010). Convention on the rights of persons with a disability. Preamble. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-therights-of-persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities2.html United Nations. (2016). Tool kit on disability for Africa: Access to justice for persons with disabilities. United Nations, DSPD and DESA. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/ desa/dspd/2016/11/toolkit-on-disability-for-africa-2/#English United Nations. (2020). International principles and guidelines on access to justice for persons with disabilities. Geneva: United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/ Disability/SRDisabilities/Pages/GoodPracticesEfectiveAccessJusticePersonsDisabilities.aspx Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC). (2014). Beyond doubt: The experiences of people with disabilities reporting crime. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission. Retrieved from https://www. humanrights.vic.gov.au/resources/beyond-doubt-the-experiences-of-people-withdisabilities-reporting-crime-jul-2014/ Victorian Law Reform Commission. (2004). Sexual ofences: Final report. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Law Reform Commission. Retrieved from https://www.lawreform.vic.gov. au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/VLRC_Sexual_Ofences_Final_Report.pdf Victorian Law Reform Commission. (2016). The role of victims of crime in the criminal trial process. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Law Reform Commission. Retrieved from https://www. lawreform.vic.gov.au/publication/the-role-of-victims-of-crime-in-the-criminal-trialprocess-report-2/ Victorian Ombudsman. (2015). Reporting and investigation of allegations of abuse in the disability sector, Phase 1 – the efectiveness of statutory oversight. Retrieved from https://www.ombudsman. vic.gov.au/getattachment/c6499f78-0eec-4e4a-8e94-e4cd716a64f8 Walklate, S., Maher, J., McCulloch, J., Fitz-Gibbon, K., & Beavis, K. (2019). Victim stories and victim policy: Is there a case for a narrative victimology? Crime, Media, Culture, 15(2), 199–215. Ziegler, M. E. (2020). Disabling language: Why legal terminology should comport with a social model of disability. Boston College Law Review, 61(3), 1183–1221.

CASE STUDY Barriers to reporting victimisation for rural victims with complex communication needs

The cases ofered here are extracted from a larger study examining the experiences of people with complex communication needs within the criminal justice system. Data analysed includes fles comprising of communication, notes and transcripts of interviews with John, Ben, Noah and Noah’s mother. These are three examples of victims with disabilities who were residing in rural locations at the time of reporting the ofending and victimisation. Noah, John and Ben are adult males. The crimes for which Ben and John sought justice were multiple historical sexual assaults. Both Ben and John are non-verbal and communicate using Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). Noah has a cognitive impairment which afects how he understands information, particularly complex information. In all cases their reports were unable to be taken at their local police station and required further travel, with which all required assistance. Ben and John travelled to metropolitan stations which were located more than 110 kilometres (68 miles) one way. In Noah’s case, travel to the regional police station was over 50 kilometres (31 miles) one way. Ben and Noah’s cases did reach court; however, in Ben’s case, his method of communication, using eye gaze with the support of a communication partner, meant that to provide evidence he would need to spell out each word. According to notes contained in Ben’s fle, his legal representative made application to the court that certain words such as penis and bottom, expected to be frequently used while providing evidence, could be predicted, thus reducing the time that Ben needed to provide evidence. The explanation consisted of three points of reference where it was hoped the court could accept that Ben was referring to specifc words. The three points of reference included: (i) “the obviousness of a particular word”, midway through the spelling of that word, for example penxx (penis); (ii) “the context of a sentence”,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-12

98

Marg Camilleri

for example his xxxxx was in my xxxxxx; and fnally (iii) “CLEAR afrmation” from Ben when the communication partner suggested a word on Ben’s behalf, using the frst two points of reference, is afrmed by Ben as being correct. The application was not supported by the defence: consequently, Ben laboriously spelt out each word of his evidence provided over several days. An experience he found exhausting and difcult. Noah’s frst attempt to make a report was initially not accepted at the rural police station, as the police ofcer questioned whether Noah’s cognitive impairment had contributed to his own victimisation. However, a subsequent report was successful, after a complaint by Noah’s father to the superintendent. A frst attempt to conduct the interview at the rural police station was abandoned, as the police ofcer was unfamiliar with how to conduct an interview in a way which allowed Noah to provide his best evidence. Noah then travelled to the regional station. However, support during the interview to assist him to understand the questions being asked by police was not provided. At the end of the third interview (required after the entire fle was lost by police), police commented to Noah’s family that the interview “didn’t go well”. It was decided that given the quality of the interview, the prospect of success at court may be increased if the charges were reduced, and the matter was heard summarily in the Magistrates’ Court. Magistrates Courts are located in regional and metropolitan locations across Australia. These courts’ hear the majority (approximately 90 percent) of criminal cases. Typically, matters heard in this jurisdiction are heard by the Magistrate alone and are considered minor or less serious; however, this perception is being challenged, as the maximum penalty of fve years’ incarceration can be imposed for some specifc ofences. John made two attempts to report two instances of historical sexual assaults but was unable to make a statement at the rural station and consequently had to report to metropolitan stations. On one occasion, police would not accept John’s mode of communication and challenged his competency to give a statement. On the other occasion at another police station, John provided a statement assisted using a communication partner. The attempted and actual report made to police did not proceed to court. There are two dimensions which diminished access to justice for Noah, Ben and John: spatial disadvantage and ableism. Spatial disadvantage, in this instance, refers to the lack of resources and training in rural and regional police stations. The impact of the spatial disadvantage was felt particularly in the inability of local police to understand how to conduct interviews with people with cognitive impairment or who use AAC. In Noah’s case, an understanding of how questions needed to be restructured would have helped Noah to provide his best evidence. In the case of John and Ben, to understand that a communication partner was required and then how to conduct an interview with someone who uses AAC would address the spatial disadvantage. The second overarching impediment relates to ableist attitudes. Ben, John and Noah all faced the attitudinal barrier at the point of frst report – the police station.

Victims with disabilities in rural areas

99

The case studies presented provide tangible examples of how people with disabilities who are victims of crime and who reside in rural locations were ‘assessed’ against an ‘ableist hierarchy’ informed by negative and generalised assumptions of capacity and credibility. The ableist expectations determined that Ben, John and Noah’s usual mode of communication did not conform to justice system requirements, and police were not willing or did not understand that for Noah, the interview questions needed to be modifed, so that the questions could be understood and then responded to comprehensively. In all instances, justice and therefore a just outcome was compromised.

8 VICTIMISATION OF THE VULNERABLE OLDER RURAL RESIDENT Barbara Blundell, Emily Moir and Amy Warren

Many factors amplify an older person’s risk of abuse, including gender, physical and cognitive impairments, past trauma, shared living situations, carer stress, social isolation, language barriers and ageism. Older people living in rural and remote areas are potentially vulnerable, owing to a lack of protective mechanisms exacerbated by social and geographic isolation and difculties accessing support and legal services. Incorporating data collected within several studies in the Australian context, this chapter canvasses the distinctive nature of elder abuse in rural, regional and remote locations, also acknowledging the diferent experiences of older Indigenous people. The abuse and mistreatment of older people is pervasive, although often not recognised. It is commonly described as “a single or repeated act or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust which causes harm or distress to an older person” (WHO/INPEA, 2002, p. 3). Five types of elder abuse are recognised in Australia (COAG, 2019, p. 3): (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

physical acts that cause physical pain or injury such as hitting, kicking and so on fnancial, including theft or misuse of money, assets or legal documents sexual behaviour without a person’s consent psychological/emotional acts that cause emotional pain or injury, such as insults, threats, humiliation and controlling behaviours (v) neglect, including failing to provide food, shelter or medical care The abuse may be intentional or unintentional, occur once or repeatedly, and be stand-alone or a combination of diferent types (Compass, 2021). Elder abuse has been shown to be multidimensional and encompass diferent abusive behaviours, victims, perpetrators and settings (Santos et al., 2019).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-13

Victimisation of the vulnerable older rural resident

101

An international systematic review and meta-analysis of elder abuse prevalence studies estimated that 15.7 percent of community-dwelling older people aged over 60 years in high- and middle-income countries may experience abuse and mistreatment (Yon et al., 2017), with the following pooled prevalence rates by type of abuse: psychological 11.6 percent (95% CI, 8.1–16.3%); fnancial 6.8 percent (5.0–9.2%); neglect 4.2 percent (2.1–8.1%); physical abuse 2.6 percent (1.6–4.4%); and sexual abuse 0.9 percent (0.6–1.4%). Prevalence could be signifcantly underestimated, as victims’ concerns about reporting can outweigh the continuation of abuse. Reporting can come with potentially severe personal and fnancial consequences, especially if the perpetrator is a family member or carer (Bonnie & Wallace, 2002). Reporting may mean that the older person is no longer able to live independently, or that they lose the perpetrator’s assistance or access to grandchildren. They may also feel ashamed to admit that a family member has been abusing them and worry about the opinions of others. Research estimating elder abuse prevalence rates may also exclude people with cognitive impairments and those who live in institutional care. A 2020 Australian study estimating the prevalence of abuse in aged care facilities estimated that 39.2 percent of residents experience neglect, emotional abuse or physical abuse (RCACQS, 2020).

Perpetrators, risk factors and heightened vulnerability Though the abuse of older people may occur outside of family relationships, the vast majority occur within families (EAPU, 2020), so it may be considered a form of family violence (Chesterman, 2016). There are several shared characteristics between the two, such as the victimisation occurring within a relationship of trust and containing some element of coercive control. By defnition, elder abuse involves a ‘relationship of trust’ and may be perpetrated within families, friendships and both paid and unpaid caring relationships (WHO/INPEA, 2002). Australian data has indicated that elder abuse perpetrators are most often family members, at between 90.6–96.1 percent (EAPU, 2020; Joosten et al., 2020) of reported cases. Historically, elder abuse has been thought to arise from carer stress and therefore be unintentional on the part of the perpetrator, however more recent research suggests that this is not the case (Brandl & Raymond, 2012; Kohn & Verhoek-Oftedahl, 2011). Factors at the individual, relationship, community and socio-cultural level have been identifed as increasing an older person’s vulnerability to mistreatment and abuse (WHO, 2018). Older people in ‘at-risk’ categories may experience abuse at increased rates, including people who have physical or cognitive impairments (Dong et al., 2014; Hughes et al., 2012; Jeon et al., 2019) those who have experienced traumatic life events such as family and domestic violence (Cations et al., 2021) as well as those who live in institutional care (Castle et al., 2015; McDonald et al., 2012). Risk factors for the abuser which increase the chance of perpetration include mental health issues and substance abuse (Kaspiew et  al., 2016; WHO, 2018).

102 Barbara Blundell, Emily Moir and Amy Warren

Relationship risk factors include shared living arrangements, the older person being dependent on the perpetrator for care or support or vice versa – the perpetrator being dependent on the older person fnancially or for support; family confict or other unresolved issues and carer stress (Kaspiew et  al., 2016; Krug et  al., 2002; WHO, 2018). Some of these risk factors, such as dependency on the perpetrator for care and/or companionship (Wydall & Zerk, 2017), are more likely to be experienced by older people as their health declines and care needs increase. Further, in line with environmental criminology, when an older person is dependent on others due to physical or neurological conditions, their vulnerability may increase as they may be viewed as ‘easy prey’ (Payne, 2011). Such factors enhance risk, as well as posing additional barriers to help-seeking. Social isolation is a recognised community risk factor (Kaspiew et  al., 2016; Krug et  al., 2002; WHO, 2018), increasing victim vulnerability and decreasing the presence of capable guardians necessary to prevent and intervene when abuse occurs (see Fulmer, 1991; Payne, 2011). Socio-cultural risk factors include, ageism, inheritance and land rights systems, erosion of intergenerational family ties, language and cultural barriers and lacking funds to pay for care (Krug et al., 2002; WHO, 2018).

Applying criminological theories to the abuse of older people Criminology has recently applied more attention to the abuse of older people to understand why it occurs, informing appropriate prevention strategies (Goergen & Beaulieu, 2010; Payne, 2011). Although no single theory can adequately describe and explain all the complexities of elder abuse, routine activity theory can provide insight into how this occurs in rural contexts. Routine activity theory contends that crime requires three elements to converge in the same place at the same time: a likely ofender; a suitable victim; and the absence of a capable guardian (Cohen & Felson, 1979). A lack of any of these elements would help to stop a crime from occurring. The convergence of these three elements is dependent on people’s everyday legal routine activities (for example work, shopping, leisure activities). Considering abuse of older adults, ofending can occur intentionally or unintentionally and be facilitated by stress, low self-control and a lack of understanding of caregiver roles (Goergen & Beaulieu, 2010). Elements associated with ageing and vulnerability may increase the suitability and targeting of older victims, particularly if they sufer from neurological or physical impairments. Issues associated with literacy (reading, writing, digital literacy) may also exacerbate opportunities to abuse older adults. Further, for guardians to be efective, they must: (i) be in close proximity to the location or person; (ii) have a direct view of what is happening; and (iii) have a defned responsibility for looking after the person or place (Felson  & Eckert, 2016). As Fulmer (1991, p.  30) writes, “isolated elders are at risk for mistreatment because they lack gatekeepers who can report mistreatment” emphasising the importance of guardians and

103

er mb

an

Me

rH

ily

de fen

am

r

om

Of

fen

H ’s

de

on

r: F

ers

Of

ge

rP

na

lde

Ma

:O

ce

ce

Pla

Pla

dle

r

Victimisation of the vulnerable older rural resident

e

Victim: Older Person

Victim’s Guardian

FIGURE 8.1

An example of the crime triangle for the abuse of older people (adapted from Eck, 2003, p. 89)

caregivers that can prevent abuse or harm from occurring through their presence, supervision and intervention. Extensions have been made to routine activity theory via the crime triangle (Eck, 2003), which outlines multiple levels of guardianship and controllers that have the potential to prevent, identify and intervene to stop crime and abuse. The crime triangle can be used to understand how ofenders, victims and places are not efectively controlled or protected and how this may lead to opportunities for abuse and prevention. Intervention by controllers can be direct (by intervening themselves) or indirect (by calling others for help, reporting to agencies, and so on; Reynald, 2009). As identifed in Figure 8.1, crime occurs when an ofender and victim converge in a place (the inner layer). In this example, the crime triangle has been adapted for the abuse of older adults where the older person is the victim, the abuse takes place in the older person’s home, and the ofender is a family member. For older people, guardianship can be provided by a broad range of people including other family members, neighbours, friends, community members and from other health and social supports an older person may be receiving – for example, general practitioners, formal carers, home-visit nurses, fnancial planners and so on (Payne, 2011; Setterlund et al., 2007). A handler is someone who knows the ofender well and who is in a position to exert some control or infuence over their actions. In this context, we can think of handlers as siblings, partners, other family members or a broad range of people who have a close social relationship to the (potential) ofender (Tillyer & Eck, 2011). Finally, a place manager is responsible for supervising and controlling behaviour in a specifc location. Where an older person is being abused in their own residence, there would be no external place

104

Barbara Blundell, Emily Moir and Amy Warren

manager to provide an additional level of protection and supervision. Place management could be provided by rental and government housing through inspections; however, these may be infrequent, exacerbating the potential for ongoing abuse. The application of routine activity theory to the abuse of older people is limited, but it has been applied to crimes such as homicide of older persons, fnancial exploitation and fraud and theft in aged care facilities (Payne, 2011, p. 228). In the context of the abuse of older adults, opportunities for abuse arise for several reasons (Goergen & Beaulieu, 2010). As Felson and Eckert (2016) explain, ofenders can come into contact with victims in three ways: (i) overlapping routine activities; (ii) personal ties; and/or (iii) specialised access. Where a family member is a caregiver, they are likely to spend a lot of time with the older person and may be given specialised access to the older person’s home and fnancial and personal records (Goergen & Beaulieu, 2010; Setterlund et al., 2007). Further, contact occurs in the absence of adequate guardianship or controllers: abuse within family settings generally happens ‘behind closed doors’ where there is no one to observe and manage what is happening in private settings (Eck, 2003; Goergen & Beaulieu, 2010). These issues are compounded in rural settings owing to isolation and a lack of informal support and access to appropriate services (Dimah & Dimah, 2003). Further detection and intervention by capable guardians are made more difcult in rural areas because of the dispersed nature of housing: if nobody is nearby to witness what is happening, the ability for others to protect the older person is reduced and opportunities for abuse subsequently arise (Felson & Eckert, 2016). Additionally, potential guardians in rural areas may be reticent to intervene in ‘private family business’ owing to fears of retaliation (Blundell et al., 2017).

Abuse and mistreatment in rural and remote areas Research in diferent countries suggests that elder abuse prevalence is similar across urban, rural and remote communities (Adler, 1996; Brownridge, 2009; Perrin, 1993). While each rural and remote community is unique, common features of living in these locations may heighten an older person’s vulnerability to abuse (ALRC, 2016). Although living in a rural or remote area is not a ‘risk factor’ per se, particular cultural and structural dynamics in rural and remote communities may make elder abuse more difcult to identify, prevent and address (Adler, 1996; Bagshaw et al., 2000; Cherniawksy & Dickinson, 2015; Hornosty & Doherty, 2002). These dynamics include lack of services (including transportation), geographic and social isolation, and difculties navigating privacy and confdentiality in small communities (Bagshaw et al., 2000; Cherniawksy & Dickinson, 2015). Geographic and social isolation are known risks factor for elder abuse (Advocare, 2017). A key factor heightening the vulnerability to elder abuse in rural and remote areas is the lack of services and resources available to respond to and prevent abuse (Bagshaw et  al., 2000; Cherniawksy  & Dickinson, 2015; Harbison et  al., 2004, 2005). Owing to high service demand and having few service providers in these

Victimisation of the vulnerable older rural resident

105

areas, staf supporting older people may be overworked, which can prevent them from detecting and intervening in situations of abuse (Hornosty & Doherty, 2002). One study found that some staf in rural and remote areas believe it is not their responsibility to screen for abuse amidst already demanding workloads, while others did not feel equipped to intervene in cases of abuse and lacked the time to attend training that would better prepare them to (Davies et al., 1996). In rural and remote areas where services provision is limited, older people may have to move to another area to receive aged-care and support (RCACQS, 2021). Some older people are not willing to do this, which can make them dependent on a carer or family member instead, thus heightening their vulnerability to abuse (Advocare, 2017). Limited social and health services and opportunities for social interactions reduce the availability and capability of potential guardians in rural areas to watch over older people and protect them from abuse. It might be more difcult for victims to avoid contact with their abusers in smaller rural communities than in urban areas (Monsey et al., 1995). Abuse may further be exacerbated by shame, or concern about protecting the family reputation, constraining people from reporting or disclosing elder abuse in rural communities (ALRC, 2017). A tendency to idealise rural life may also lead to a belief that abuse does not happen in these contexts (Adler, 1996; Davies et al., 1996). Abuse in rural areas can sometimes be considered a private family matter (Dimah & Dimah, 2003). For guardians and handlers to be efective, a willingness to intervene is critical (Felson & Eckert, 2016; Tillyer & Eck, 2011). Staf in rural aged care settings may also be more reticent to disclose or report abuse for fear of repurcussions from community members (Blundell et al., 2017). If other rural residents view dysfunctional care, abuse and neglect as a family matter which they should not involve themselves in, then capable guardianship and ofender handling is lowered with limited numbers of people willing to intercede. There are, though, some positive aspects of living in small communities that serve as protective factors and increase levels of guardianship to protect older people, such as closer social connectedness and increased responsibility felt to look after neighbours (Blundell et  al., 2017). Close working relationships between human service and welfare organisations, who often share clients, may also be protective (Owen  & Carrington, 2015). When community members and service workers know each other well, more potential guardians can recognise when something untoward is happening (Blundell et al., 2017).

Mistreatment of older Indigenous people in rural and remote areas Indigenous people comprise about fve percent of the global population, and they are disproportionately represented in the ranks of the extreme poor, at around 15 percent. Globally, Indigenous life expectancy is around 20 years lower than that of non-Indigenous people. First nations peoples are distinct socially and culturally, with collective ancestral ties to their lands that are linked to identity, culture and

106 Barbara Blundell, Emily Moir and Amy Warren

physical and spiritual wellbeing. Many have been displaced by colonisation and lack formal recognition over their lands, territories and natural resources (The World Bank, 2021). A separate focus on the mistreatment and abuse of Indigenous older people in rural and remote areas is important. In an Australian context, British colonisation has efectively produced distinct Indigenous and non-Indigenous ruralities (Cowlishaw, cited in Owen & Carrington, 2015, p. 230). The population distribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is more regionalised than that of other ethnic and cultural groups – 65 percent of Indigenous people live in rural, regional and remote areas compared with 32  percent of the non-Indigenous population (ABS, 2017). Four matters are important to note. First, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are from diferent cultural contexts than non-Indigenous Australians. This is particularly apparent in rural and remote Indigenous communities which are often more engaged in traditional cultural customs than those in urban areas. Second, ‘Elder’ is a term of respect for older community leaders, so there are difculties with use of the term ‘elder abuse’ to refer to mistreatment of older Aboriginal people (Clare et  al., 2011). Third, older Aboriginal people encounter the ageing process earlier than non-Indigenous people and are typically defned as ‘older’ from ages 45 to 50 in comparison with age 60 to 65 for non-Indigenous people (Kimberley Jiyigas (Birds), 2020). Fourth, it must be recognised that all Aboriginal communities are diferent, with unique cultural practices, community operations and family relationships (Brownlee, 2019). Australian research projects have found higher prevalence rates of abuse and mistreatment for older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. For example, a Western Australian study found that Indigenous-specifc services reported an estimated prevalence rate of 18 percent, in contrast with the 0.58 percent estimate calculated for mainstream services (Boldy et al., 2002). Increased prevalence may be attributed to issues such as over-reliance of younger Indigenous people on older Indigenous people for money and other resources (Brownlee, 2019), and ongoing impacts of colonisation (Sanders, 2005). Research suggests that some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families deal with abuse on a daily basis from family members and kin (OPA WA, 2005) with fnancial abuse – ‘humbugging’, especially common. Humbugging is a term used in Aboriginal communities to describe a person demanding someone’s money with no intention of repaying it (Kimberley Jiyigas (Birds), 2020)1. Broader defnitions of family relationships in Indigenous culture may increase the scope of abuse, as ‘family’ or a kinship group may include children, parents, a range of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and grandchildren (Daylight & Johnstone, 1986). Research participants in a study by the Ofce of the Public Advocate in Western Australia (OPA WA, 2005) suggested that the abuse of older people could be normalised in some Indigenous communities, accompanied by feelings of disempowerment and helplessness for those family and community members trying to respond.

Victimisation of the vulnerable older rural resident

107

Systemic factors, including inadequate access to essential resources such as health care, education, employment and housing may heighten the vulnerability of older Aboriginal people in rural and remote areas to mistreatment (Sanders, 2005). It has been suggested that increased rates of drug and alcohol misuse in some Indigenous communities may contribute to an increased risk of abuse (OPA WA, 2005), driven by a lack of hope for the future (Black, 2008) based on past intergenerational discrimination, poverty and disadvantage. Many older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people may also be members of the ‘stolen generation’, children of mixed Indigenous and non-Indigenous descent who were forcibly removed from their families by government agencies and church missions between the late 1800s and the 1970s (Department of Health, 2016). The forced assimilation process that fractured family connections and has been described as a contributing factor to a lack of respect from members of the younger generation towards older Aboriginal people, which may translate into abuse and mistreatment in some cases (Black, 2008). Older Aboriginal people who were forcibly removed may have a deep distrust of government and mainstream services (Blundell et al., 2017) making them less willing to access supports or report abuse due to past negative experiences, leaving them isolated and at risk of further abuse (RCACQS, 2021). Other barriers to reporting include traditions of sharing money and resources between family members, and, like abuse for non-Indigenous older people, feeling shame that the perpetrator is a family member.

Responding to abuse of older people in rural and remote areas Specifc services and supports in rural and remote areas for older people are generally lacking, and policy consideration of elder abuse in these contexts largely only make mention of increased vulnerabilities for older people without identifying any support strategies to address the issue (Blundell & Warren, 2019) Research into elder abuse has focused heavily on understanding its extent and risk factors, whereas “research on responses is far less developed” (O’Keefe et al., 2007, p. 87). The work that does exist is mostly theoretical, focused on how theory can be used to inform responses (Cox, 2008; Goergen & Beaulieu, 2010), or is targeted towards preventing fnancial abuse by family members (Setterlund et al., 2007) or theft and abuse in aged-care facilities (Payne & Gainey, 2006). As such, there is scant evaluative evidence around what works in preventing elder abuse, especially in rural and remote settings. Current strategies used to respond to and potentially prevent elder abuse include telephone helplines, training frontline staf to recognise and respond to abuse, utlising available family and domestic violence services where appropriate, outreach services from urban areas provided at intervals, community development and education (Warren & Blundell, 2018). Training for frontline staf on how to identify and respond to suspected incidents of abuse, and individual support, education and counselling for caregivers can help prevent ongoing abuse by increasing their

108 Barbara Blundell, Emily Moir and Amy Warren

capability as guardians over older people (Campbell Reay & Browne, 2002; Cox, 2008; Nahmiash & Reis, 2001). If a carer is educated on how to appropriately care for someone, it is theorised that this could help prevent unintentional or passive neglect (Payne, 2011). However, in rural and remote settings, supporting bystanders who report abuse are essential if efective guardianship is to be enhanced (Cox, 2008; Payne & Gainey, 2006). Further, community outreach programs can reduce the isolation of older people by connecting them to the community, building support networks and educating older people about the risks of abuse and prevention tips (Payne, 2011; 2013). Such practices extend the number of potential guardians that can monitor and watch out for older people and educate older people about how to be efective guardians over their own assets. Responses to perpetrators are largely missing, with most interventions aimed at supporting the victim and their non-abusing family members (Blundell & Clare, 2020). However, there is some data to suggest that interventions with caregivers reduces the risks of continued abuse (see Pillemer et al., 2016). A ‘one size fts all’ approach to responding to elder abuse in rural and remote areas is inefective, owing to the heterogeneity of such communities (Warren & Blundell, 2018). Further, the abuse and mistreatment of older Indigenous people is complex, and culturally specifc co-designed approaches are needed to address the diversity within this population (Warren & Blundell, 2018). Adequately servicing rural, regional and remote areas is a challenge for governments and community service organisations alike because of funding pressures and the increased costs of servicing large and sometimes remote geographical areas. Technological advances, such as the internet, video calling and email may improve the accessibility of services for those who are able to use these systems, though evidence about the usability of these technologies for older people is mixed (Rees & McCallum, 2018). This emphasises the need to develop tailored multidisciplinary solutions suited to the unique contexts in which abuse occurs (Johnson, 2003; Payne, 2011, 2013).

Conclusion While prevalence rates of elder abuse in rural and remote areas may be similar to those in urban areas, this issue has not been adequately considered and funded in policy and service delivery. Preventative responses are also limited and hindered by the lack of robust evaluations. Responses need to work against community and service provider lack of knowledge of the issue and the older person’s reluctance to report the perpetrator, who is often a family member or caregiver. Each rural and remote community is distinct, with diferent characteristics and mixes of services and supports available, highlighting the need for tailored, local responses. In countries with colonial histories, specifc culturally appropriate responses are needed to address cultural and structural contributors to abuse and mistreatment of older Indigenous people.

Victimisation of the vulnerable older rural resident

109

Note 1 Humbugging is generally a repeated action, often coupled with threats or actual emotional, psychological or physical abuse if the person refuses. It may also encompass outright theft, such as using another person’s bank card or accessing their welfare payments without permission (Kimberley Jiyigas (Birds), 2020).

References Adler, C. (1996). Unheard and unseen: Rural women and domestic violence. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 41(6), 463–466. Advocare. (2017). Elder abuse protocol: Guidelines for action. Retrieved from https://www. advocare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/AdvocareElderAbuseProtocol_ BOOKLET_WEB.pdf Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2017). 2071.0 – census of population and housing: Refecting Australia – stories from the census, 2016. Canberra, ACT: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2071.0main+ features102016 Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC). (2016). Elder abuse (Discussion paper 83). Sydney, NSW: Australian Law Reform Commission. Retrieved from https://www.alrc.gov. au/publications/elder-abuse-dp83 Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC). (2017). Elder abuse-A national legal response (ALRC Report 131). Sydney, NSW: Australian Law Reform Commission. Retrieved from https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/elder-abuse-report Bagshaw, D., Chung, D., Couch, M., Lilburn, S., & Wadham, B. (2000). Reshaping responses to domestic violence. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from https:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.452.2467&rep=rep1&type=pdf Black, B. (2008). The human rights of older people and agency responses to elder abuse. Perth: Centre for Human Rights Education, Curtin University. Retrieved from http://apeawa. advocare.org.au/publications/The_human_rights_of_older_people_and_agency_ responses_to_elder_abuse.pdf Blundell, B., & Clare, M. (2020). Designing Australian responses to elder abuse: Issues and challenges. In M. K. Shankardass (Ed.), International handbook of elder abuse and mistreatment (pp. 539–557). New York: Springer. Blundell, B., Clare, J., Moir, E., Clare, M.,  & Webb, E. (2017). Review of the prevalence and characteristics of elder abuse in Queensland. Curtin University and Murdoch University. Retrieved from https://www.communities.qld.gov.au/campaign/end-domestic-familyviolence/our-progress/enhancing-service-responses/tailoring-responses-meet-needsvulnerable-queenslanders Blundell, B., & Warren, A. (2019). Reviewing the extent of rural and remote considerations in elder abuse policy: A scoping review. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 27(4), 351–357. Boldy, D., Webb, M., Horner, B., Davey, M., & Kingsley, B. (2002). Elder abuse in Western Australia: Report of a survey conducted for the Department for Community Development – Seniors’ Interests. Perth: Curtin University of Technology, Division of Health Sciences and the Freemansons Centre for Research Into Aged Care Services. Bonnie, R. J., & Wallace, R. B. (2002). Elder abuse: Abuse, neglect and exploitation in an aging America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Brandl, B., & Raymond, J. (2012). Policy implications of recognizing that caregiver stress is not the primary cause of elder abuse. Generations – Journal of the American Society on Aging, 36(3), 32–39.

110

Barbara Blundell, Emily Moir and Amy Warren

Brownlee, S. (2019). Elder abuse prevention project northern territory: Final report. Darwin, NT: Darwin Community Legal Service. Retrieved from https://www.dcls.org.au/wp-content/ uploads/2019/02/Elder-Abuse-Prevention-Project-Final-Report.pdf Brownridge, D. A. (2009). Violence against women: Vulnerable populations. London: Routledge. Campbell Reay, A. M., & Browne, K. D. (2002). The efectiveness of psychological interventions with individuals who physically abuse or neglect their elderly dependents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(4), 416–431. Castle, N., Ferguson-Rome, J. C., & Teresi, J. A. (2015). Elder abuse in residential longterm care: An update to the 2003 National Research Council Report. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 34(4), 407–443. Cations, M., Keage, H. A. D., Laver, K. E., Byles, J., & Loxton, D. (2021). Impact of historical intimate partner violence on wellbeing and risk for elder abuse in older women. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 29(9), 930–940. Cherniawksy, T., & Dickinson, R. (2015). Promising practices across Canada for housing women who are older and feeing abuse. Retrieved from http://www.bcli.org/wordpress/wp-content/ uploads/2014/11/Promising-Practices-for-Housing-Women-who-are-Older.pdf Chesterman, J. (2016). Taking control: Putting older people at the centre of elder abuse response strategies. Australian Social Work, 69(1), 115–124. Clare, M., Black Blundell, B.,  & Clare, J. (2011). Examination of the extent of elder abuse in Western Australia. Retrieved from https://www.law.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0008/2129606/2011-Examination-of-the-Extent-of-Elder-Abuse-in-WesternAustralia.pdf Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. Compass. (2021). Defning elder abuse. Retrieved from https://www.compass.info/defningelder-abuse#link-4 Council of Attorneys-General. (2019). National plan to respond to the abuse of older Australians (Elder Abuse) 2019–2023. Canberra, ACT: Government of Australia. Retrieved from https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/protecting-the-rights-of-older-australians/ Documents/National-plan-to-respond-to-the-abuse-of-older-australians-elder.pdf Cox, K. (2008). The application of crime science to the prevention of elder abuse. British Journal of Nursing, 17(13), 850. Davies, J., Harris, M., Roberts, G. L., Mannion, J., McCosker, H., & Anderson, D. (1996). Community health workers’ response to violence against women. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 5, 20–31. Daylight, P., & Johnstone, M. (1986). Women’s business: Report of the Aboriginal Women’s Task Force. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Publishing Service. Department of Health. (2016). Caring for forgotten Australians, former child migrants and stolen generations: An information package for aged care services. Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Health). Retrieved from https://agedcare.health.gov.au/support-services/ people-from-diverse-backgrounds/caring-for-forgotten-australians-former-childmigrants-and-stolen-generations-booklet Dimah, K. P., & Dimah, A. (2003). Elder Abuse and neglect among rural and urban women. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 15(1), 75–93. Dong, X., Chen, R., & Simon, M. A. (2014). Elder abuse and dementia: A review of the research and health policy. Health Afairs, 33(4), 642–649. Eck, J. E. (2003). Police problems: The complexity of problem theory, research and evaluation. In J. Knutsson (Ed.), Problem-oriented policing: From innovation to mainstream (Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 15). Criminal Justice Press.

Victimisation of the vulnerable older rural resident

111

Elder Abuse Prevention Unit. (2020). Year in review 2019–20. Retrieved from https:// www.eapu.com.au/uploads/annual_reports/Elder%20Abuse%20Prevention%20Unit% 202019-20.pdf Felson, M., & Eckert, M. (2016). Crime and everyday life (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Fulmer, T. (1991). Elder mistreatment: Progress in community detection and intervention. Family and Community Health, 14(2), 26–34. Goergen, T.,  & Beaulieu, M. (2010). Criminological theory and elder abuse research – fruitful relationship or worlds apart? Ageing International, 35(3), 185–201. Harbison, J., Coughlan, S., Karabanow, J.,  & VanderPlaat, M. (2004). Ofering the help that’s needed: Responses to the mistreatment and neglect of older people in a rural Canadian context. Rural Social Work, 9, 147–157. Harbison, J., Coughlan, S., Karabanow, J., & VanderPlaat, M. (2005). A clash of cultures: Rural values and service delivery to mistreated and neglected older people in Eastern Canada. Practice: Social Work in Action, 17(4), 229–246. Hornosty, J.,  & Doherty, D. (2002). Responding to wife abuse in farm and rural communities: Searching for solutions that work (SIPP Public Policy Paper No. 10). Retrieved from https:// ourspace.uregina.ca/bitstream/handle/10294/6662/SIPP%20Public%20Policy% 20Papers%2010.pdf?sequence=1 Hughes, K., Bellis, M. A., Jones, L., Wood, S., Bates, G., Eckley, L., McCoy, E., Mikton, C., Shakespeare, T., & Ofcer, A. (2012). Prevalence and risk of violence against adults with disabilities: A  systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. The Lancet, 379, 1621–1629. Jeon, G.-S., Cho, S.-I., Choi, K., & Jang, K.-S. (2019). Gender diferences in the prevalence and correlates of elder abuse in a community-dwelling older population in Korea. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(1), 100–113. Johnson, K. D. (2003). Financial crimes against the elderly. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Ofce of Community Oriented Policing Services. Retrieved from https:// www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/fnancial-crimes-against-elderly Joosten, M., Gartoulla, P., Feldman, P., Brijnath, B., & Dow, B. (2020). Seven years of elder abuse data in Victoria. Melbourne, VIC: Seniors Rights Victoria. Retrieved from https:// seniorsrights.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2020August26PolicySevenYearsEA DataVictoria.pdf Kaspiew, R., Carson, R., & Rhoades, H. (2016). Elder abuse: Understanding issues, frameworks and responses. Melbourne, VIC: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved from https://aifs.gov.au/publications/elder-abuse Kimberley Jiyigas (Birds). (2020). No More Humug!!! Reducing aboriginal fnancial elder abuse in the Kimberley. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56aae0e04d088e4dfa68396f/ t/5fd2cb14a3fdf15f0988a97/1607650229752/No+More+Humbug+fnal+report.pdf Kohn, R., & Verhoek-Oftedahl, W. (2011). Caregiving and elder abuse. Medicine and Health, Rhode Island, 94(2), 47–49. Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Zwi, A. B., & Lozano, R. (2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet, 360(9339), 1083–1088. McDonald, L., Beaulieu, M., Harbison, J., Hirst, S., Lowenstein, A., Podnieks, E., & Wahl, J. (2012). Institutional abuse of older adults: What we know, what we need to know. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 24(2), 138–160. Monsey, B., Owen, G., Zierman, C., Lambert, L., & Hyman, V. (1995). What works in preventing rural violence: Strategies, risk factors and assessment tools. Retrieved from https://fles. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED382430.pdf

112

Barbara Blundell, Emily Moir and Amy Warren

Nahmiash, D., & Reis, M. (2001). Most successful intervention strategies for abused older adults. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 12(3–4), 53–70. Ofce of the Public Advocate WA (OPA WA). (2005). Mistreatment of older people in Aboriginal communities project: An investigation into elder abuse in Aboriginal communities. OPA (WA). Retrieved from https://paperzz.com/doc/7619827/mistreatment-of-older-peoplein-aboriginal O’Keefe, M., Hills, A., Doyle, M., McCreadie, C., Scholes, S., Constantine, R., Tinker, A., Manthorpe, J., Biggs, S., & Erens, B. (2007). UK study of elder abuse and neglect of older people: Prevalence survey report. London: National Centre for Social Research. Owen, S.,  & Carrington, K. (2015). Domestic violence (DV) service provision and the architecture of rural life: An Australian case study. Journal of Rural Studies, 39, 229–238. Payne, B. K. (2011). Crime and elder abuse: An integrated perspective (3rd ed.). Springfeld, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher. Payne, B. K. (2013). Physical and emotional abuse of the elderly. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Ofce of Community Oriented Policing Services. Retrieved from https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/physical-and-emotional-abuse-elderly Payne, B. K., & Gainey, R. R. (2006). The criminal justice response to elder abuse in nursing homes: A routine activities perspective. Western Criminology Review, 7(3), 67–81. Perrin, N. (1993). Elder abuse: A rural perspective. In N. C. Bull (Ed.), Aging in rural America (pp. 161–170). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Pillemer, K., Burnes, D., Rifn, C., & Lachs, M. S. (2016). Elder abuse: Global situation, risk factors, and prevention strategies. The Gerontologist, 56(Suppl 2), S194–S205. Rees, K., & McCallum, J. (2018). A little help from my friends: Getting good advice in the Information Age. Retrieved from https://nationalseniors.com.au/uploads/10172744PAR_ InformedIntermediaries_Report_FNWEB.pdf Reynald, D. M. (2009). Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 11(1), 1–20. Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. (2020). Experimental estimates of the prevalence of elder abuse in Australian aged care facilities (Research Paper 17). Retrieved from https://agedcare.royalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/fles/2020-12/research-paper17-elder-abuse-prevalence-aged-care-facilities.pdf Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. (2021). Final report: Care, dignity and respect. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from https://agedcare. royalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/fles/2021-03/fnal-report-volume-4b_0.pdf Sanders, L. (2005). Financial abuse of older people: A Queensland perspective. Elder Abuse Prevention Unit. Retrieved from https://www.eapu.com.au/uploads/research_resources/ Financial_Abuse_QLD_SEP_2005-EAPU.pdf Santos, A. J., Nunes, B., Kislaya, I., Gil, A. P., & Ribeiro, O. (2019). Elder abuse victimization patterns: Latent class analysis using perpetrators and abusive behaviours. BMC Geriatrics, 19(1), 117. Setterlund, D., Tilse, C., Wilson, J., McCawley, A., & Rosenman, L. (2007). Understanding fnancial elder abuse in families: The potential of routine activities theory. Ageing and Society, 27(4), 599–614. The World Bank. (2021). Indigenous peoples. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/ en/topic/indigenouspeoples. Tillyer, M. S., & Eck, J. E. (2011). Getting a handle on crime: A further extension of routine activities theory. Security Journal, 24(2), 179–193. Warren, A.,  & Blundell, B. (2018). Elder abuse in rural  & remote communities: Social policy, prevention and responses. Perth: Curtin University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle. net/20.500.11937/71488

Victimisation of the vulnerable older rural resident

113

World Health Organization (WHO). (2018). Elder abuse [fact sheet]. Retrieved from http:// www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/elder-abuse World Health Organization/International Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse (WHO/INPEA). (2002). Missing voices: Views of older persons on elder abuse. World Health Organization. Retrieved from https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/67371/ WHO_NMH_VIP_02.1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Wydall, S., & Zerk, R. (2017). Domestic abuse and older people: Factors infuencing helpseeking. The Journal of Adult Protection, 19(5), 247–260. Yon, Y., Mikton, C. R., Gassoumis, Z. D., & Wilber, K. H. (2017). Elder abuse prevalence in community settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Global Health, 5(2), e147–e156.

CASE STUDY Applying the crime triangle to Indigenous rural elder abuse

Sally1 is a 74-year-old Indigenous woman who lives in a government-provided house in a regional town. Her unit is part of a group of eight, and she has lived there for fve years. Recently, one of Sally’s nieces, Joanne, moved into one of the units in the group and Sally has been looking after Joanne’s four children who are aged 5, 6, 8 and 10. Joanne will often rely on Sally to pick the kids up from school and look after them until Joanne gets home from her bar job, and they sometimes stay overnight when Joanne goes out with friends. Joanne helps Sally manage paperwork and appointments because Sally is not very literate and fnds this difcult, and therefore has specialised access to Sally’s fnancial and health records. Sally’s illiteracy may increase her vulnerability to abuse. Sally has been struggling to manage her fnances since she started helping with the children and she has not been able to keep her unit as tidy as she used to. The oldest children have started demanding money from Sally and if she does not give them any, they wait until she is asleep and take money from her purse. Joanne has a key to Sally’s house and will often come over when Sally is out and takes what she wants – Joanne and other relatives have taken Sally’s TV and phone, saying that they need them more than she does. On pension day, Joanne and other relatives come over to Sally’s house and demand money when they are short of cash. Sally is often hungry, as the food that she can aford to buy usually goes to the children frst leaving Sally with the leftovers. As Sally has Type 2 diabetes, not eating has sometimes led to hypoglycemia and she has been hospitalised on two occasions. Sally is experiencing fnancial and emotional abuse (victim), in her home (place) perpetrated by family members (ofenders). Opportunities for abuse by family members are provided through close familial ties. Rather than family members acting as guardians to protect Sally’s welfare and possessions, they have taken advantage

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-14

Victimisation of the vulnerable older rural resident

115

of a lack of external controllers. There are no guardians or controllers present from the second layer of the crime triangle to intervene, to stop abuse from continuing. Sally loves the children and does not want to make trouble. She is afraid to complain to Joanne about the way she is treated, as she is concerned that Joanne will no longer be able to help her and that she will not be able to see the kids anymore. She is also afraid of some of the people Joanne socialises with and worries that if she falls out with Joanne, they will turn on her. It is a small town, and Sally will often see these people out at the shops, parks, school and other locations. While there are community members and neighbours who could act as guardians to potentially help Sally and stop the ongoing abuse, the willingness to intervene is understood to be more difcult in small, rural areas owing to fear of negative repercussions and meddling in what is traditionally seen as ‘private family business’. When the government housing provider does a property inspection, Sally is issued with a warning that her home and yard are not meeting the required standard and that she has to pay to repair a wall and door which the children damaged. Sally does not have enough money to pay for the repairs and does not think she is able get the house clean for the next inspection. The housing provider is an example of a place manager: they would have the ability to detect something may be wrong and intervene to improve Sally’s situations. In this instance, however, they fail to be a capable, protective controller; they are focused on protecting the property rather than Sally. A local social worker, Alicia, noticed Sally in tears one day after her card had been declined for insufcient funds at the grocery store. Sally confded in Alicia what had been happening and that she was broke, hungry, and was worried about eviction. Alicia works at the hospital and had noticed that Sally was recently admitted on two occasions for hypoglycemia. Alicia suggests that Sally ring the Elder Abuse helpline, as she thinks Sally is being taken advantage of. Here, Alicia operates as a guardian over Sally and ofers help when she suspects something untoward is occurring. Sally says she would not be comfortable ringing the helpline – she does not see what is happening as abuse and is uncomfortable with talking to someone over the phone whom she does not know. It is not uncommon for older Indigenous people to distrust mainstream services owing to historical trauma and poor treatment. Further, Sally is worried that if she reports to someone external, Joanne will get upset and will tell other people, making things worse for Sally within her community. Sally is therefore resigned to putting up with the situation. Support services (especially face-to-face) are under-resourced and limited in rural areas, and staf are generally underprepared to deal with elder abuse. Limited culturally safe support services that can appropriately respond to the unique needs of First Nations communities exacerbate a lack of capable and appropriate guardians available to help Sally. While there are many potential controllers available to Sally, this case study highlights difculties and hesitancy of guardians intervening in (potentially) abusive situations in small rural towns.

116

Barbara Blundell, Emily Moir and Amy Warren

In rural areas, crime control around the abuse of older adults can be hindered by various factors – a lack of willingness to intervene in family relationships, the inability to witness what happens ‘behind closed doors’, and fears around intervention and possible retaliation, especially for First Nations peoples.

Note 1 This case study is based on a real case (with thanks to Advocare Inc.) and has been elaborated with further detail based on an amalgamation of common issues that can arise in the mistreatment of older Indigenous people to de-identify the case.

9 MODERN SLAVERY IN AGRARIAN SETTINGS Richard Byrne and Kreseda Smith

Agriculture has a long and dark relationship with slavery. For most people, slavery is believed to be a thing of the past, taking place in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, linking Africa and the Americas in the eponymous slave triangle, producing cotton, sugar and tobacco for consumers in Europe. In the contemporary economy, slavery may be perceived as a developing nation issue, linked to bananas, cocoa and cotton. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Modern slavery is frmly embedded in the global agricultural and food supply industry, and here in this chapter will be considered through the lens of the United Kingdom’s and West Africa’s experiences. Despite the common view of the countryside and rural appearing to be low in crime and often considered idyllic, modern slavery is never far away. Separated by a few hundred years, modern slavery is based again on the exploitation of human labour, the crushing of the human spirit and the devaluing of human life. The methods of enslavement and transport for modern slaves may have changed, but many of the drivers are the same, especially the desire of some to exploit others to maximise proft (Caruana et al., 2021). Some three hundred years ago, it was the growth of the European economies and the move to industrialisation which both fuelled and was fuelled by the slave trade, along with a good degree of greed and a view of Europeans as superior beings. Today it is the demand for cheaper food, wider food choices and agriculture being a low wage sector that are key drivers of modern slavery (Chesney et al., 2019). This is particularly true when looking at the growth of modern slavery in developing nations. At the heart of this issue, though, is the economics of food production. For many outside of the rural economy, agriculture is often perceived in idealised terms, as perpetuated by the media. In reality, it is a highly mechanised, science-based economic activity pursuing efciencies to shave pennies or cents of products to maintain already wafer-thin proft margins in the face of changing

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-15

118

Richard Byrne and Kreseda Smith

government policy, combined with the impacts of climate change, while maintaining retailer relationships which are focused on the consumer and shareholders rather than producers. As a result, labour has become as commodifed as any other part of the supply chain, and as such is open to abuse and exploitation. In short, modern slavery taints agriculture and food production, and slaves are regularly involved in the production and processing of food. This chapter explores the drivers behind the perpetuation of slavery within agricultural systems. Modern slavery, like its historic predecessor, exploits labour from the farm felds to the processor. Whilst fnancial gain is at the heart of this exploitation, it is perpetuated through a combination of downward cost pressure in the supply chain and the involvement of transnational organised crime groups. Such groups fll a gap in the legitimate labour market, both in terms of supplying labour and reducing labour costs, thus allowing margins to be maintained and ultimately for consumers to beneft from a supply of lower priced foods. Despite interventions into the market by the agri-food industry to audit the labour system, these have had little impact. With a devastating impact upon the victims, often isolated geographically and linguistically, and undocumented in hostile immigration systems, the agri-business industry seeks to identify victims so they may be assisted. However, given the scale of the problem and the economics of food production, such activities are in an uphill struggle to tackle the issue. Only when consumers recognise their food is perhaps produced with the toil of exploited people will a fnancial mechanism aid law enforcement in ridding the food chain of this exploitation.

The changing nature of agricultural production in developed nations The building blocks of a food production system are simple enough, combining land, water, good climate, inputs and labour. This simple model has changed rapidly since the Industrial Revolution, and certainly since the Second World War. Population growth has led to wider urbanisation and use of agricultural land for building or other land uses; latterly conservation and recreation. This, and other factors such as subsidy regimes, has increased the value of agricultural land signifcantly, especially in Europe (Baldoni & Ciaian, 2021). Water and good climate – once considered generally dependable resources – are now in many parts of the globe at a premium, or their reliability no longer assured due to climate change. This has led to the need for risk management, such as investment in irrigation or the move to more drought-tolerant crops or the move to glasshouses and polytunnels to extend seasons and improve water efciency. With regard to farm inputs, post the ‘green revolution’ of the 1960s, the use of artifcial fertilisers and crop protection products have dramatically changed yields of crops, allowing more to be grown per hectare with increased harvests resilient to pests and diseases. However, these products require large amounts of energy to produce them: in the case of nitrogen fertiliser, there is a need for natural gas. As

Modern slavery in agrarian settings

119

energy prices have increased, so too has the cost of these products. The rising cost base of production would not be so much of an issue if the consumer cost of food had also risen. However, in the United Kingdom since the 1990s, food prices have generally decreased. This is a result of increased efciency in the agricultural supply chain, the growth of large retailers with integrated supply chains and the globalisation of food (Future Agricultures, 2012).

The European food system The food supply system in Europe is based on achieving the right amount of product in the right market and utilising ‘just in time’ principles. Just in time is a management system whereby a business receives goods as close as possible to when they are required. This has meant a huge investment in technology – both in mechanisation, but also in varieties of a crop that are fast maturing and which are easily transportable and with a good shelf life. Today’s food system is efcient, global and can source a huge variety of foods both in season and out of season for a location. Whilst the consumer has benefted from improvements both in price and choice, it has often left the farmer a price-taker rather than a price-setter. Unlike a traditional market where the producer can infuence the market, today’s agri-business market is one where the producer often has to pay delivery charges to supermarkets and pay the supermarket to stock their product. All this erodes, by necessity, the proftability of products. It also leads to an impression that foodstufs are low-value commodities – and this, in turn, impacts the labour market and suppresses agricultural wages. Whilst much of agriculture is highly mechanised, especially in the cereals sector, there is still a reliance on human labour, in particular in the feld vegetable, soft fruit, tree fruit and poultry sectors. Recruitment and retention of farm labour is a widespread problem; whilst robotics may in the future reduce the reliance on human hands, current technology is expensive and lacks the fexibility (Lowenberg-DeBoer et  al., 2020) and resilience to operate in a wide variety of environments. At present, human labour is best suited to farming because it is easily mobilised and can do a variety of tasks – weeding, thinning, picking, packing and so on, whereas a robot is often dedicated to a single task or limited number of tasks (Vasconez et al., 2019).

The growth of agri-business in developing nations The ‘green revolution’ propelled developing nations’ agriculture into the realms of agri-business, but it was globalisation in the 1980s which pushed the supply chains from the Global North into them. The main driver of this was cost, closely followed by regulation. The rise of agri-environmentalism in the late 1980s in Europe meant that land was being taken out of production for conservation, followed by an ongoing desire to reduce pollution and emissions. This has led to of-shoring of production in regions of Central and South America as well as East and West Africa.

120

Richard Byrne and Kreseda Smith

Whilst these have been traditional agricultural areas, the demand for agricultural commodities – such as bananas, pineapple and cocoa – has created vast plantations and sucked in labour from not just host nations but internationally (Martin, 2016). Latterly, with the growth of these economies and an increasing middle class, there has been the development of processing industries. This has led countries such as Kenya not only to export whole fruit but value-added fruit products to the United Kingdom (Krishnan & te Velde, 2018). Whilst outwardly agriculture has bought ‘development’ to support such businesses, such as roads and telecoms, it has disrupted local food supply in the favour of exports, and has concentrated power in a few hands. Even in the turbulence of dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s in the southern hemisphere, export-led agriculture fourished whilst poverty continued (Thomson, 2017).

Modern slavery in Nigeria Nigeria is considered one of the top source countries for both migration and modern slaves in Africa (McAulife & Trianafylliduo, 2022; Schwarz et al., 2021). It sufers from both internal trafcking within its borders and external trafcking within West Africa and beyond to the Middle East, Turkey and Europe. Alongside this is both a legal and illegal (irregular) push for migration, as poverty and instability impact this populous country. With the added driver of climate change and increasing internal confict, not just with the insurgent terrorist organisation Boko Haram but with rising tensions between settled farmers and semi-nomadic herdsmen, there is a desire of many of Nigerian youth to leave the country for economic betterment (Migrants and Refugees, 2020). Nigeria, and particularly the central-southern state of Edo, has a long history of migration to Europe, and in particular to Italy. In the 1970s, migrants travelled to the major centres of Italy to sell artwork, for which Edo and Benin City, its administrative capital, are well known. As the value of the African art market dipped, these migrants moved into agriculture – picking tomatoes, in particular, whilst others were drawn into the sex trade, which partly explains the dominance of Nigerian citizens in both the running of prostitution and direct involvement in prostitution (much of which is based on modern slavery). It is this culture of economic irregular migration which human trafckers exploit. Irregular migration in West Africa can be divided into two typologies: (i) Europe; and (ii) internally within Africa. Irregular migrants may use a smuggler or make their way to their destination of choice, usually Europe, regardless that up to 60 percent may become victims of trafcking and ending up in destinations such as the United Kingdom, although not of their choice (UNODC, 2020). However, most trafcked people are kept within Africa: only some 20 to 38  percent will move on to Europe (De Haas, 2008). Once in the hands of trafckers, women are more likely to move towards Europe, and men – particularly Muslim men – more likely to be trafcked internally within Africa. Irregular migration generally becomes trafcking when migrants are detained by ofcials or non-ofcial groups

Modern slavery in agrarian settings

121

such as a militia or an organised criminal group (OCG) (MMC, 2019). Increasingly, they are being betrayed by their smugglers to trafckers. They may then be held for ransom, and/or moved into a state of modern slavery. Some are released only to be re-trafcked in Europe. Those migrants who are sent into forced labour generally end up in agriculture, mining and construction, commonly in Libya, Algeria and Niger. The agriculture section is dominated by child labour, working not just in cocoa but also cassava – a labour intensive staple crop of West Africa. Child slavery and child labour are common in these industries as producers opt for the cheapest labour supply to ofset low commodity prices. Like United Kingdom farmers, they are price-takers rather than price-setters. The nature of plantation agriculture also means that there are peaks and troughs in labour requirement, which inevitably increases the price of labour: by using child and slave labour, producers can control their costs (Odijie, 2021). This is particularly evident regarding cocoa production wherein, despite industry and non-governmental organisation interventions to monitor and assure ethical cocoa production, both child labour and child slavery persist, driven by economics. Consumers are seemingly unwilling to pay more for the product and audited ‘slave free’ chocolate remains a small part of the overall chocolate purchases, although indications are that better education could increase acceptance (Luckstead et al., 2021). Developing nations remain vulnerable to labour exploitation despite interventions as poverty persists, and areas are destabilised by confict, subsequent migration and migration resulting from climate change.

The expansion of migrant labour in the United Kingdom The issue of agricultural labour supply difculties is not a new one. Before 1945, the United Kingdom relied heavily on migrant labour to supplement farm labour at peak times. Much of this came from Irish Travellers, whose mobility allowed them to follow harvests around the country. During the Second World War in the United Kingdom, the reduction in farm labour owing to men serving in the military was addressed by the re-activation and expansion of the Women’s Land Army which had been frst created in 1917 (Twinch, 1990). Prisoners of War were employed, and post-War there was a resurgence in city dwellers ‘holidaying’: picking hops and apples, especially by Londoners moving to Kent south-east of London. As Western economies grew, and economic well-being improved, working in agriculture and the agri-food industry became seen as less of a career. Long hours, basic pay and poor working outdoors in all weathers was seen as unattractive compared to the opportunities which the post-war engineering and commerce boom bought. Similarly, in the twenty-frst century, given young peoples’ aspirations and the opportunities of the digital economy, agriculture is not seen as an aspirational career, even though the wider agri-food sector ofers signifcant employment opportunities, (Chaudhary, 2015). As full-time jobs were

122

Richard Byrne and Kreseda Smith

reduced owing to mechanisation, the package holiday replaced the working holiday and there was a shift to greater dependence on migrant labour. The United Kingdom’s Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme ran from 1945 to 2013; frst attracting labour from France and Italy, and later accessing labour from Eastern Europe. Whilst permanent farm labour declined across the United Kingdom and the European Union with greater mechanisation, there was a move to a casualisation of farm labour (Devlin, 2016). In the 2000s, United Kingdom agriculture grew with the free fow of labour from countries such as Romania, Bulgaria and Poland. An accessible and mobile workforce allowed soft fruit and feld vegetables to expand and for companies to invest in new ventures and equipment. From coriander to blueberries, the expansion of products was enabled by plentiful and cost-efective labour. Migrant labour became a mainstay of the United Kingdom’s agricultural workforce – the peak occurring before the Brexit vote of 2016, where 27,000 people from European Union member states worked in the United Kingdom, and a further 116,000 European Union nationals worked in the United Kingdom’s food manufacturing sector (McGuinness  & Garton-Grimwood, 2017). During peak harvest seasons, up to 75,000 extra casual staf, some 98 percent from the European Union, were recruited. At the beginning of the growth of United Kingdom migrant labour in the 2000s, there was often a culture of groups of European Union workers moving around agricultural areas, undertaking various tasks over the season. Anecdotal evidence drawn from workers in Shropshire as part of the early asparagus harvest came from Poland in groups of six sharing camper vans. They started working in the United Kingdom in March, setting up polytunnels in the Midland counties before working on asparagus, then either salad crops or soft fruit, before moving back to Europe for autumn and winter work in food processing plants. Whilst this allowed the worker to bargain work rates and to ensure their own and each other’s welfare, farmers found such negotiations inefcient, and agencies – and what became known as gangmasters – took over collating, managing and representing many tens if not hundreds of labourers over a season. Gangmasters can ofer efciencies of scale in that they can direct labour as and when needed and act as a single point of contact for the farm business. Whilst the free movement of labour across the European Union brought benefts to the agri-food industry and employees, there was a recognition by a variety of authorities and social commentators that there was potential for abuse to take place. The large numbers of employees moving into and around the United Kingdom meant that there was scope for exploitation, as people were often excluded from public health services and were often in isolated locations with limited access to communications. The United Kingdom already had the experience of large-scale migrant labour exploitation following the Morcombe Bay cockle pickers tragedy of 2004, where at least 21 Chinese undocumented immigrants drowned while picking cockles (BBC, 2014). These people had been trafcked into the United Kingdom by Chinese

Modern slavery in agrarian settings

123

organised crime gangs via shipping containers and then put to work in conditions where they knew little of the tides or geography of the waters they were working in. As a result of this, the United Kingdom set up the Gangmasters Licencing Authority in 2005, later renamed the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA). The GLAA’s central mandate is to regulate and investigate labour abuses in a wide range of industries. The GLAA formation was a recognition that the demand for migrant labour, and the fnancial gains possible from exploiting labour was now a focus of OCGs. The large numbers of migrant workers now required to produce food at scale means that staf are often recruited through agencies. Given that farms may require labour at diferent levels throughout the harvesting season, agencies provide a useful service in not only recruiting and vetting staf but also ensuring that they are available at the right time and at the right location. The commodifcation of agricultural labour has ensured that labour is efectively and efciently deployed, but it has created an extra element in the supply chain. The GLAA have had some success in exposing labour exploitation within the UK workforce (GLAA, 2021), but there is limited evidence it acts as a deterrent.

The rise of modern slavery in the United Kingdom’s agriculture The growth of agribusiness has created not only opportunities for food producers but also for OCGs who recognise that the supply of labour can be low risk and highly proftable. That is not to say that labour exploitation did not occur in the past, but rather that the organised movement of people and subsequent exploitation of their labour is recognised by both Government and the industry as a growing problem. Whilst it is difcult to put an exact fgure on the number involved, it is generally considered that, at a minimum, some 10,000 people are enslaved within United Kingdom agricultural systems (GLAA, 2018). As with all OCG activity, both the mechanism and focus of the crime are always adapting and responding to the market. Post-Brexit in the United Kingdom, there has been a huge reduction in legal migrant agricultural labour as European Union nationals can only work under a revised Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme which allows some 30,000 migrants into the United Kingdom to work on farms, roughly half the requirement (DEFRA, 2020). A crisis in agricultural labour supply is an opportunity for organised criminal gangs. The question must be asked then: are farmer and agri-food businesses knowingly employing enslaved labour? There is no simple answer to this. There is certainly evidence of a very small minority of farmers employing such labour (GLAA, 2018), but the majority rely on gangmasters and agencies to supply labour and, unless due diligence is made and maintained, there is always the opportunity for OCGs to insert enslaved labour into a legitimate workforce. Whilst some of these illegal gangmasters ofer below rate farm labour, this is not always the case. Again, the fexibility of the OCGs will determine how they will exploit the labour market.

124

Richard Byrne and Kreseda Smith

The process of worker enslavement in the United Kingdom OCGs enslaving people operate in many ways, depending on who they are targeting. As with sexual slavery, the use of legitimate-sounding agencies and job ofers is one of the primary means of attracting people into their grasp. Often the frst contact made with a modern slavery gang is within a person’s home country (GLAA, 2018). It is common for advertisements to be made on social media or notice boards in places where young people meet. The air of legitimacy is key, in order that that they attract the right people for the ‘post’. Contrary to the popular view that modern slavery is a male-dominated crime, a cursory view of court cases reveals a high proportion of women working in slavery gangs, often giving a human face to a front company or operation. Once ‘contracted’ for employment, individuals usually are made to hand over their documentation – rendering them tied to the OCG. In efect they are being trafcked, as there is a lack of consent as to what they are going to do as employment, and the employment they have been promised will not necessarily be what they will engage in. Given the pattern of work in agriculture, which may mean a few days at one site with many moves, victims often become disorientated. Coupled with language comprehension issues, they may not know where they are geographically or who they can turn to for assistance. It is often queried why persons in this situation simply do not run away. Interviews undertaken by the GLAA and as part of criminal investigations with formerly enslaved workers often cite the fact that they do not know where to go, they are fearful of authority as they lack documentation and they are fearful of any repercussions (GLAA, 2018). Whilst violence is used against modern slavery victims, coercive control is more common (Skeivankova, 2014). The fear of violence to them or their family is a powerful tool to ensure compliance. Some victims may not recognise that they are being exploited until they are paid; even then, the level of payment may be such that it is an improvement on what they would earn in their home country that they accept or do not immediately question their situation. The use of excessive deductions in wage packets is a common occurrence, with OCGs often deducting infated accommodation, transport and other charges. Whilst many enslaved persons, particularly from Eastern Europe, become enslaved after willingly engaging in what they thought of as a legitimate employment opportunity, there is another group of enslaved held through debt bondage. Typically from China or from other parts of Asia, these people are the victims of people smugglers. Initially, they will have consented to be transported and paid people smugglers to be taken, often in hazardous conditions, to the United Kingdom or a European Union destination. Unless they have paid upfront, they will be in a state of debt bondage and forced to work to pay of the debt at a rate set by the smugglers (Gentleman, 2020). With the ending of freedom of movement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, human trafckers have targeted other groups for labour

Modern slavery in agrarian settings

125

exploitation. With economic fux, there has been an increase in homelessness in the United Kingdom, and it is these vulnerable individuals who are now being targeted with the promise of shelter and employment. Many have mental health or addiction issues, and this is part of the control mechanism used by the trafckers to ensure compliance. In addition, trafckers have moved to target asylum seekers and illegal migrants. Again, vulnerability aids compliance and with victims’ lack of documentation, abusers can retain control.

Identifying modern slavery in the United Kingdom’s agriculture Given the geography of agricultural holdings, many individuals are efectively hidden from public view. Even within agri-produce processing sites, it may be hard to identify trafcked individuals as they may just blend in with other legal migrant workers. It is, however, the transient nature of agricultural labour which makes it so hard to spot exploitation. Within the United Kingdom, all labour has to be supplied through a GLAA licenced provider who will have a licence number. This is the frst check which anyone contracting labour within the agri-supply chain ought to review. A registered and ‘good’ supplier of labour will provide a service level agreement, indicating the number of staf, when they will be provided and the tasks that they are capable of undertaking. How people are paid may be an indication of exploitation. For example, if individual wages are paid into one bank account, a red fag ought to be raised. Of course, this may be a legitimate way in which an agency is paid – who will then transfer payments to individual workers. Staf should hold their own documentation and be free to use it to access services. Other indications of modern slavery are where people are housed, how they are transported, whether they look clean and if their clothes appear laundered and whether they appear to have access to health care. Interviews with agri-processing human resource staf have indicated it is the behaviour of those who are trafcked which serves as the most telling indicators (Byrne, 2019). For example, indicative in cafeterias is whether workers eat or drink, as often they do not have access to prepared lunches or money to purchase food. Similarly, it has been noted that trafcked people generally do not mix, spending their rest periods separate from other workers, not engaging in wider conversation and deferring to a group spokesperson when asked a question. Social isolation, lack of sustenance and poor standard of accommodation and hygiene have a physical as well as mental impact on a victim, often manifesting in poor work performance and accidents. In isolation, these are not indicators of modern slavery but form part of a pattern of indicators of victims.

The impact of modern slavery Those who are subject to labour exploitation in agriculture and food processing risk more than their freedom. Often housed in unsanitary crowded conditions and

126

Richard Byrne and Kreseda Smith

with little food, they are placed in a situation where they are exposed to outside elements and the extremes of heat and cold. Often supplied with minimum personal protective equipment (PPE), they work long hours where fatigue can expose them to risk of injury or death with machinery and equipment. Many of the activities they are engaged with necessitate bending over for long periods with knives to cut and trim kale, broccoli, caulifower and so on. This is not only physically demanding, but the speed at which employees are expected to work means they are under pressure and accidents are much more likely (Byrne, 2019). Working tired in agriculture and agri-processing is one of the main causes of injury. Additionally, workers may be exposed to chemicals, dust and noise without adequate or correct PPE. This may have long term health implications. There is also a very distinct gender issue in labour division. Whilst it is not uncommon to see women working in felds in the United Kingdom, most female migrant labour is directed to fruit picking and processing, as it is believed by many in the agricultural industry that women are more adept at these tasks (such as picking strawberries or trimming and bunching salad onions). Trafcked women face the additional risk of experiencing other forms of victimisation. For example, they may become victims of sexual assault either by other workers or the OCGs that govern their movements. Whilst there is documentary evidence of sexual exploitation within migrant workers (Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Afairs, 2018), in the European Union, United States and Asia there is little research on this area in trafcked people in agriculture. It is fair to assume, however, that people under coercive control are vulnerable to physical, sexual and mental assault. Fundamentally, modern slavery results in the disempowerment of the individual and their subsequent risk of exposure to other criminal acts.

Conclusion Contrary to the perception that rural areas are predominantly crime free idylls, the persistence of a distinct cognitive dissonance that has arisen among some rural communities has led to the proliferation of modern slavery within the agricultural sector. The United Kingdom was the frst country to instigate a Modern Slavery Act in 2015 and yet, despite this, slavery persists within the United Kingdom. The country’s food industry is driven by economics and greed – and the insidious reach of OCGs. At the heart of this is a society wishing to have cheap and available food which is either United Kingdom produced or from global supply chains. At the other end of the value chain are people who are vulnerable and often desperate to fnd work or better themselves: people who are tricked, forced and coerced into exploitative labour situations either for no pay or little pay or indeed only recompensed with limited food and poor-quality lodging. Unlike sexual slavery, there is little public awareness of the use of exploited labour in the food chain and where market interventions are made, as in the cocoa trade where the consumer largely accepts or rejects products based on price.

Modern slavery in agrarian settings

127

Part of the solution to modern slavery may be in tackling the endemic underemployment and unemployment in source countries. However, as climate change and insecurity impacts rise in many of these regions, the reason for leaving home countries is not just economic. The real solution is for consumers to value their food. Consumers already are purchasing organic and animal welfare conscious products. To bring this level of consciousness to the human security sphere would be positive for both modern slavery and labour exploitation and push the agribusiness industry to question, invest and monitor their supply chains.

References Baldoni, E., & Ciaian, P. (2021). The capitalisation of CAP subsidies into land rents and land values in the EU. Luxembourg: Publications Ofce of the European Union. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). (2014, February 3). Morecambe Bay cockling disaster’s lasting impact. BBC. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englandlancashire-25986388 Byrne, R. (2019). Seasonal agricultural workers: A report prepared for the catholic Bishop’s conference. Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales. Unpublished report. Caruana, R., Crane, A., Gold, S., & LeBaron, G. (2021). Modern slavery in business: The sad and sorry state of a non-feld. Business and Society, 60(2), 251–287. Chaudhary, K. (2015). Identifying the factors responsible for selection of choosing farming as a career. Journal of Research in Commerce & Management, 6(11), 69–71. Chesney, T., Evans, K., Gold, S., & Trautrims, A. (2019). Understanding labour exploitation in the Spanish agricultural sector using an agent based approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 214, 696–704. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Afairs (DEFRA). (2020, December 22). Up to 30,000 workers to help reap 2021 harvest [Press Release]. DEFRA. Retrieved from https:// www.gov.uk/government/news/up-to-30000-workers-to-help-reap-2021-harvest-2 De Haas, H. (2008). Irregular migration from West Africa to the Maghreb and the European Union: An overview of recent trends (vol. 32). Geneva: International Organization for Migration. Devlin, S. (2016). Agricultural labour in the UK. London: Food Research Collaboration. Future Agricultures. (2012). Agricultural labour productivity and food prices: Fundamental development impacts and indicators. London: Future Agricultures Policy Brief 53. Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA). (2018). The nature and scale of labour exploitation across all sectors within the United Kingdom. London: GLAA Problem Profle 1i4. Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA). (2021). Quarter 3 performance summary. Retrieved from https://www.gla.gov.uk/our-impact/performance-reports/q3-performancereport-2021-22/ Gentleman, A. (2020, December 21). Essex lorry deaths: Two found guilty over manslaughter of 39 Vietnamese people. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/ uk-news/2020/dec/21/essex-lorry-trial-two-found-guilty-over-deaths-of-39vietnamese-people Krishnan, A., & te Velde, D. W. (2018, July 20). Kenya-UK trade and investment relations: Taking stock and promoting exports to the UK. DFID-ODI. Retrieved from https://odi.org/ en/publications/kenyauk-trade-and-investment-relations-taking-stock-and-promotingexports-to-the-uk/ Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., Huang, I. Y., Grigoriadis, V., & Blacmore, S. (2020). Economics of robots and automation in feld crop production. Precision Agriculture, 21, 278–299.

128

Richard Byrne and Kreseda Smith

Luckstead, J, Snell, H. A., Nalley, L. L., Nayga Jnr, R. M., & Sarpaning, J. (2021). A multicountry study on consumers’ valuation for child-labor-free chocolate: Implications for child labor in cocoa production. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 44(2), 1021– 1048. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13165 Martin, P. (2016). Migrant workers in commercial agriculture. Geneva: International Labour Organization. McAulife, M.,  & Trianafylliduo, A. (Eds.). (2022). World migration report 2022. Geneva: International Organisation for Migration. Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/sites/ reliefweb.int/fles/resources/WMR-2022-EN.pdf McGuinness, T., & Garton-Grimwood, G. (2017, July 4). Migrant workers in agriculture. London: House of Commons Library Briefng Paper Number 7987. Migrants and Refugees. (2020). Country profle – Nigeria. Retrieved from https://migrantsrefugees.va/country-profile/nigeria/#:~:text=The%20inability%20of%20the% 20labour,become%20vulnerable%20to%20human%20trafcking.&text=Dissatisfaction% 20with%20the%20socio%2Deconomic,has%20increased%20emigration%20from% 20Nigeria Mixed Migration Centre (MMC). (2019). What makes refugees and migrants vulnerable to detention in Libya. Brussels: Mixed Migration Centre, Brussels. Retrieved from https:// reliefweb.int/report/libya/what-makes-refugees-and-migrants-vulnerable-detentionlibya-microlevel-study?gclid=CjwKCAjw0a-SBhBkEiwApljU0gyMZ5rDPjV_ epj5_21c2x_K-jY3blB1bKWCWJ27VdpoxmaJV3QFVRoCgHsQAvD_BwE Odijie, M. (2021, June  2). Why does child slavery persist in West Africa’s cocoa production? LSE Blogs. Retrieved from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2021/06/02/ why-does-child-slavery-persist-west-africa-cote-divoire-cocoa-chocolate-production/ Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Afairs. (2018, May). The vulnerability to exploitation of women migrant workers in agriculture in the EU: The need for a Human Rights and Gender based approach. Brussels: Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Afairs Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union PE 604.966. Schwarz, K., Valverde-Cano, A.,  & Williams-Woods, A. (2021). The top 20 source countries for modern slavery victims in the UK. Nottingham: University of Nottingham Rights Lab. Retrieved from https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/beacons-of-excellence/ rights-lab/resources/reports-and-briefngs/2021/april/the-top-20-source-countriesfor-modern-slavery-in-the-uk.pdf Skeivankova, K. (2014). Forced labour in the United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://www. gla.gov.uk/media/1584/jrf-forced-labour-in-the-uk.pdf Thomson, H. (2017). Food and power: Agricultural policy under democracy and dictatorship. Comparative Politics, 49(2), 273–296. Twinch, C. (1990). Women on the land: Their story during two world wars. Cambridge: Lutterworth Press. United Nations Ofce on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2020). Global report on trafcking in persons. Vienna: United Nations Ofce on Drugs and Crime. Vasconez, J. P., Kantor, G. A., & Cheein, F. A. A. (2019). Human – robot interaction in agriculture: A survey and current challenges. Biosystems Engineering, 179, 35–48.

CASE STUDY Farm worker victimisation by an organised criminal gang in the United Kingdom

In 2019, news outlets in the United Kingdom were reporting the conviction of the largest European human trafcking network with an estimated 400 victims, some of whom were forced to work on a farm in Worcestershire in the West Midlands of England.

The farm Sandfelds Farm is a supplier of spring onions, asparagus and seasonal legumes to G’s Group, a multinational company supplying United Kingdom supermarkets including Waitrose, Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury’s. The director of the farm is Derek Wilkinson, who is also a member of the Horticultural Board of the National Farmers Union (NFU) in England. Despite rigorous policies and practices in place for the employment of the estimated 700 seasonal workers they employ each year to help with the salad and vegetable crop harvest, between April and October 2019 modern slavery victimisation of farmhands occurred across two sites. This case illustrates that any company can fall foul of organised criminality. Several employees were found to be victims of modern slavery and human traffcking at the hands of a criminal network. This came about despite Sandfelds using a recruitment agency licensed by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. Unbeknownst to the director and key staf at Sandfelds, the recruitment agency had been infltrated by a member of the criminal gang in order to facilitate the fow of labour for the network. Wilkinson was very regretful as to the turn of events (BBC News, 2019): “I regret that we’ve ended up with victims in our business. . . . It has been horrifc and I’m really pleased the police have got the prosecution through.” Despite the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act in 2015, it has proven difcult for companies to ensure that their supply chains are free from modern slavery and DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-16

130

Richard Byrne and Kreseda Smith

human trafcking. This remains a problem particularly within the feld and processing ends of the supply chain.

The victims Operation Fort, a long-running investigation conducted by West Midlands Police, identifed a total of 92 potential victims. However, through the course of their enquiries, the police estimated that as many as 400 Polish nationals could have been exploited by the criminal gang involved in this case. These victims were targeted by the criminal network in Poland owing to their existing vulnerabilities: being homeless; recently released from prison; and with addictions. They spoke little or no English and were distrustful of the police. These victims were then pressured into accepting ofers of work and quickly transported to England via multiple routes and taken to addresses in the West Midlands. The organised crime gang had 32 poorly maintained rental properties across the area, and the victims were forced to live in flthy and overcrowded accommodation, often with no heating or hot water, and were given only small amounts of out-ofdate food for sustenance. Victims were forced to open multiple bank accounts and obtain National Insurance numbers, the importance of which they did not understand. The organised crime gang then took victims’ bank details, identity documents and National Insurance numbers, and used them to take out loans, make false insurance claims, and apply for benefts on behalf of the victims. The gang members then kept all of the documents, as well as monies received. The victims were kept isolated with fear and suspicion being instigated at all times – both about the United Kingdom justice system, but also about their fellow workers. Regular psychological, verbal and physical assaults, as well as threats of physical and sexual violence towards the victims and the family of victims, were inficted. Victims who complained about their treatment were taken outside and told to dig their own graves in the woods. One victim was subjected to horrifc abuse in front of other workers and told that the gang would remove his kidney if he did not keep quiet. Of the 92 victims, at least seven were made to work at Sandfelds Farm picking vegetables in felds. These abuses were only identifed in 2015 when two of those workers escaped and visited a soup kitchen run by a local church. Here they met a Polish charity worker who referred them to Hope for Justice, an anti-slavery organisation. From there, the victims were given help and support to talk about their ordeal, which led to the creation of the Operation Fort investigation in 2015. The operation culminated in eight gang members being convicted after two trials ending in July 2019, and other associates being convicted after a third trial ending in July 2021.

The ofenders This investigation uncovered the biggest European human trafcking network brought before English courts to date. It was led by members of the Brzezinski

Modern slavery in agrarian settings

131

family, with key associates from a second Polish criminal family. Over a period of fve years, the network made £GBP 2 million ($USD 2.76 million) from their operations, and lived in luxury. Eight ofenders were sentenced by the end of the second trial in July 2019, with sentences ranging from three years to 11 years, and totalling more than 55 years for crimes including trafcking, conspiracy to require another to perform forced labour and money laundering. While Ignacy Brzezinski was seen as the lynchpin of the operation, two key actors were women. Justyna Paczewska, the wife of Brzezinski, was described as the matriarch welcoming workers and providing food and drink on their arrival. Julianna Chodakowicz acted as the facilitator from inside a Worcester-based employment company signing up numerous victims.

The outcome As a direct result of Operation Fort, many of the businesses involved have started working together to tackle the impact of modern slavery in their supply chains. In particular, G’s Group have convened the Modern Slavery Intelligence Network in cooperation with Marks and Spencer (IASC, 2020, 2021). This case highlights the lengths organised criminals will go to, and the need for robust policies and procedures that can respond to the agile nature of these groups. According to the British Retail Consortium (Hussain, 2019): this issue demonstrates that much more needs to be done, which is why we continue to call on the government to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act and for greater enforcement to prevent exploitation now and in the future. G’s also plan to promote the uptake of the United Nations Guiding Principles agenda as part of its new human rights policy, providing a more proactive approach to tackling slavery and other social risks in supply chains. They have developed a range of analytics and worker engagement tools to track risk and trends in company operations.

References BBC News (2019, August 19). Warwickshire farmer’s regret at employing modern day slaves. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-49393936 Hussain, D. (2019, July 8). More than 450 Polish ‘modern slaves’ entrapped by gang who were convicted last week were forced to work supplying top supermarkets including Asda, Tesco and Waitrose. Daily Mail. Retrieved from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/article-7222737/More-450-Polish-modern-slaves-forced-work-supplyingsupermarkets.html Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner (IASC). (2020). Operation fort: What businesses should learn from the UK’s largest anti-slavery prosecution. Retrieved from https://www. antislaverycommissioner.co.uk/resources/ Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner (IASC). (2021). Operation fort revisited: Retailers and suppliers respond to the UK’s largest anti-slavery prosecution. Retrieved from https://www. antislaverycommissioner.co.uk/resources/

10 VICTIMS OF FARM CRIME Gorazd Meško and Katja Eman

Introduction Even if low compared with urban settings, crime in rural areas impedes security for all residents, as victimisation is usually unevenly distributed or focused on a specifc group (Ceccato, 2016). In rural areas, farm crime is a particularly important issue, as agriculture is an essential part of the economy. Ofending against farms threatens international trade, food security and reliable food supplies; it causes high costs for farmers due to lost production and replacement costs, loss of working time and higher insurance premiums which all afect local economies (Barclay, 2016). Rural crime has fnancial, emotional and physical consequences for victims, their relatives and the community, and has long-term consequences (McKechnie, 2019). Although farmers sufer much fnancial and personal damage, research shows that not all crimes are reported to the police. As a result, the public does not know or understand the extent and impact of this type of victimisation, and at the same time, it represents one of the biggest obstacles to policing (Barclay, 2016). This chapter considers agricultural crime from a rural criminological perspective, with particular focus paid to on-farm crime victimisation. It draws upon fndings from the Slovene National Rural Crime Victimisation Survey, which reveals that property crime (thefts and frauds) and interpersonal violence (especially domestic crimes) present the major issues for both farmers and police in Slovenia. For Slovene farmers, the most problematic is their cognition that they are not capable enough or do not have sufcient resources to protect or defend themself and their property. The chapter questions if and how farmers difer from the rest of the rural population in their concern for crime and how they perceive issues around ofending and victimisation in their rural environment.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-17

Victims of farm crime

133

On- and of-farm ofending Persistent notions of a rural idyll can conceal criminal activities whereby activity in closed networks remains unseen (Somerville et al., 2015). Smith et al.’s (2017) research of 210 rogue and criminal farmers cases in the United Kingdom showed that in 207 cases, ofenders were male, refecting male dominance in farming practices. The illegal activity, which included informal, environmental, white-collar and other criminal acts, primarily occurred owing to the land’s privacy being that it was committed on-farm. Statistically, of-farm ‘criminal’ acts are less likely, which represent conscious inclusion and investments into criminal activities with no connection to the legal farming business (such as smuggling and supplying criminals with drugs, tobacco products and frearms). Environmental crime represents a category of on-farm crime, motivated by the fnancial aspect of saving money and personal gain or could be committed due to “pressures directly related to work issues” (Smith et al., 2017, p. 127; Eman & Bulovec, 2021). On-farm environmental crime includes criminal ofences such as water, air and soil pollution (such as pollution of water sources with slurry or efuent), animal maltreatment (such as non-provision of veterinary care or animal cruelty), crimes against wildlife (such as livelihood afecting shooting or poisoning of wildlife, illegal trap setting) and folk crimes (such as illegal brewing/stills and poaching) (Smith et al., 2017). Economic and white-collar crime forms are not so rare in rural areas as might be assumed. Predominately fnancially-motivated white-collar on-farm crime include ofences from tax and insurance fraud (such as evasion or avoidance of paying taxes, vehicle excise or insurance documentation; fctitious or over-rated losses of livestock and work equipment) to red diesel usage, and crimes associated with animal breeding such as the use of illegal veterinary medicines and food additives, animal cruelty and the animal trade (such as ‘puppy breeding’) (Smith et al., 2017). On-farm criminal activity can also transform farms into a criminal environment for money laundering or chemicals and waste disposal. In this case, criminals can use farms as hiding places for drugs, frearms and stolen items.1 Smith et al. (2017) note that the privacy and remoteness of farms present an opportunity for drug production, theft of livestock, crops, work equipment and machinery. The extensiveness of on-farm criminal activity is high. Other criminal activities include diferent meat and food frauds, animal breeding violations (such as feeding animals with steroids or food additives, illegal slaughtering practices, organisation of animal fghts), employment of illegal migrants, corruption, bribery and subsidy frauds. Such on-farm criminal activity consists of engagement in organised crime (such as paying for debts extortion) and terrorism (such as re-selling fertilisers for explosive production). Here we face the issue of intertwining the terms ‘rural crime’, ‘agricultural crime’ and ‘farm crime’. Smith (2010) divides rural crime in more detail: •

Crime on farms: theft of plants, trailers, metal doors, power tools, scrap metal, fuel, fertilisers; vandalism of machinery and buildings; burning of buildings

134

• •

•

Gorazd Meško and Katja Eman

and straw bales in the felds; torture ofences; persecution of animals (such as sheep) Crime against wild animals: illegal hunting of deer, rabbits, salmon and so on; catching badgers with baits; theft of wild animal eggs Management of illegal rural enterprises: animal theft; illicit trade in cigarettes and veterinary products; illegal dogfghting and puppy breeding; subsidy fraud and tax evasion; cultivation of illicit cannabis; illegal brewing activity Village crime: minor thefts; antisocial behaviour due to alcohol and illicit drugs; vandalism of public buildings; drug trafcking; illegal car racing.

Ofending against farms and farmers includes a wide array of ofence types (Ceccato & Dolmen, 2013; Nicolson, 2015) – the nature and context of which are limited exclusively to rural areas (Ceccato, 2016). The victimisation of farms and farmers can include the theft of water from irrigation systems or theft of wood from farms, for example. Crime on farms depends on situational circumstances, especially the opportunities for crime, targets and lack of control or security. Larger properties are more attractive as they have larger spaces that are more accessible and, at the same time, lack proper controls (Ceccato, 2016). Thefts of minor equipment are more common than serious thefts or robberies, thefts of chemicals or fuels, vandalism and burglary. Even though equipment might not be worth much, it is easier to carry and more attractive for theft, storage and disposal. Certain types of agricultural activities are more susceptible to crime than others, and certain farm settings are more likely to be targeted such as those where the land is not close to the primary residence and is closer to the city centres. Anderson and McCall (2005) note that some farms have a higher victimisation rate owing to inadequate custody, higher numbers of employees and cultivated areas. The industrialisation of agriculture and technological advances in agricultural mechanisation have made farms with various expensive equipment and livestock attractive targets for organised criminal groups. The theory of opportunity, which suggests that more attractive targets are often stolen (Mears et al., 2007), is pertinent here.

Farm victimisation, non-reporting and lack of access to services Mawby (2015, p. 269) identifes a lack of research about rural crime victims and ofenders. Victims can be categorised according to the time spent in the neighbourhood, such as long-term residents or recent arrivals; or homeowners or temporary residents, such as seasonal workers and visitors. According to Brazilian national survey data from 2009 (Scorzafave et al., 2015), residents with higher education and income levels are middle-aged men, and single people in rural areas, at a higher risk of being victimised, most commonly through attempted and committed theft or robbery, and physical assault. Ofenders generally operate by the principle of

Victims of farm crime

135

low risk and high profts (rational choice theory) choosing rural areas because of unprotected properties (such as houses and barns) with high-value items (such as equipment, tools and products) (Scorzafave et al., 2015).

Non-reporting Non-reporting remains a signifcant problem in rural areas, creating the so-called ‘dark fgure of crime’ – that is, crime which occurs but is not reported and therefore recorded (Harkness, 2021). Thus, rural residents are less likely to point out and talk about their experiences with the crimes they have faced. Geographical and social isolation in rural areas often make it difcult for victims to report emotional personal stories and experiences to relevant services, friends, family members and non-government organisations (Nicolson, 2015). Lovell (2016) assumes that reasons for not reporting include a lack of knowledge or awareness in advance that the police will not be successful (disinterested). Harkness (2021) adds that a lack of evidence or uncertainty about whether a crime has actually been committed can be another reason for non-reporting. Sometimes farmers avenge the crime and deal with the perpetrator on their own or face the fear of retribution if they defy the perpetrators (Hacin & Eman, 2019). Some incidents are not taken seriously. For example, research has shown that although farmers knew that crime was occurring, only a few introduced new security measures (Donnermeyer & Barclay, 2005). The signifcant reason for non-reporting is the slow detection of the perpetrator and the perceived lack of interest on the part of the police (‘waste of time’ and ‘because the police will not act’) (Barclay, 2016, p. 109). McCall and Homel (2003) note that unreported crime is among the most important factors limiting the efective implementation of on-farm crime prevention measures. Prolonged time periods can also cause non-reporting and recognise that something is missing. This is especially true for unreported livestock theft (Harkness, 2017). It is worth noting that rural communities are under informal social control, which helps solve community crimes, and there is often no need to report to the police (Barclay, 2016). However, Harkness (2021) is correct that “non-reporting afects resourcing decisions. If the reality of farm crime is not known, then appropriate attention cannot be paid”.

Access to policing and other services Rural victims lack other barriers to victim services compared to their urban counterparts. Grossman et  al. (2005) listed these obstacles: the fear of breaking solid social ties, forcing formal control agencies into a typically informal setting; the stigma associated with acts of sex; and lack of transportation. To most rural communities, a severe lack of capital is also common. It reduces a victim service provider or program’s ability to serve a community well. Benson (2016) adds that victim service providers in rural environments cover larger geographic areas,

136

Gorazd Meško and Katja Eman

which amplifes the risk of inconsistent treatment and limits access to those victims without personal transportation. Weisheit et al. (2006) identifed these obstacles as crucial for reduced reporting of rural victimisation and an unsafe dependence on informal social controls. In a rural environment, police activity and the criminal justice system are distinctive from urban areas (Jones et al., 2016). Rural policing difers from classical policing in certain respects. For example, the small population and population density and interconnectedness of the rural areas afect the rigour of policing, which is generally more lenient than in urban environments. The economic, social and cultural factors of smaller environments are refected in rural settings as they condition the response of police and other state authorities (Yarwood & Woof, 2016). Funding sources are limited and consequently, the authorities’ reactions are slower and usually more expensive. Local police ofcers and other state representatives are also part of the rural social environment, which can afect their judgment and decision-making (Hacin & Eman, 2021). Smith and McElwee (2013) found that one problem of rural police ofcers is maintaining social distance because local police ofcers are often part of the rural social environment, which afects their judgment and decision-making. Police ofcers cover large areas in rural spaces, often with limited resources. Yarwood (2003) points out that the police face demands to increase their visibility from one direction and their efciency from another. In rural areas, the police face pressures that are not easily overcome and require knowledge of the rural regions’ role, crime and the police role in the community.

Responses to ofending against farms Donnermeyer and Barclay (2005) emphasise that efective on-farm crime control requires time – the time spent by the police to work with the community to remove existing barriers, impart new knowledge, and encourage the reporting of crime. Given that rural areas are constantly changing, this type of crime will also change. An efective response requires an understanding of the physical and social characteristics of the rural environment and the characteristics of the distinction between those environments (Weisheit et al., 1999). In contrast to urban communities, rural areas have a smaller and less compact population (Weisheit & Donnermeyer, 2000). Residents are more likely to know each other and communicate ‘face to face’, believe in shared values and norms, and share a common identity diferent from other places and people. The greater the cohesion of the rural community, the greater the potential conficts between law enforcement and the population can be (Donnermeyer & Barclay, 2005, p. 6). Diferences between victim expectations and police oversight capacity lead to dissatisfaction, creating public distrust and low rates of reported crime and victimisation (Harkness & Mulrooney, 2020). To function efectively, police ofcers must gain the support of residents, so the police must also exercise discretion (Donnermeyer & Barclay, 2005).

Victims of farm crime

137

Perceptions of crime and victimisation Among the security challenges in farm settings are concerns about criminal ofences and perceptions of deviant behaviour. A key issue is how farmers difer from the rest of the rural population in their concern for crime and how they perceive the issues in their rural environment. Perceptions of security problems represents a vulnerability (individual perceptions of the physical and social environment) to crime, which means that individuals are not capable enough to protect or defend themselves and their property or need more time to recover from victimisation. The countryside is imagined to be a safe environment rather than a threat, so the likelihood of victimisation afects the emergence of fear and concern about crime. Experience theory explains that the perception of a crime depends on social and emotional factors (Mawby & Yarwood, 2016). Previous studies (for example Meško, 2020) have shown that residents of rural areas are less likely to consider the possibility that any of the crimes will happen to them in the next year. However, because the countryside population is small and the connectivity of the villagers is high, information is transmitted quickly, so knowing someone who has been a victim of crime and who has told their story and experiences can lead to compassion and empathy for their problems – this is called instrumental theory (an individual’s own experience). When people feel anxious, they become aware and form an opinion based on the information received about the occurrence and success of tackling crime in rural areas. They change their behaviours, emotions and cognitive thinking (Donnermeyer, 2017). These behavioural changes are refected in self-protection (situational prevention), alternative approaches to ensuring safety and preventing villagers from committing crimes, avoiding public meetings, changing daily activities and more frequent use of guard dogs as a means of protecting property (Meško et  al., 2019). The question remains whether such behaviour reduces individual concerns about what is happening in rural areas. Experts have found that changes in behaviour can reduce the risk of victimisation over time but not reduce fear (Donnermeyer & DeKeseredy, 2008). The response of the police and other services in rural areas takes more time due to the distance. Therefore, residents report a greater concern about the unresponsiveness of not only the police but also health agencies and other forms of assistance. Assistance available to victims is much less organised in rural areas, as fewer prevention programs are available, and police also fnd it more challenging to protect the anonymity of applicants and victims from retaliation (Grote & Neubacher, 2016).

Slovene ‘national rural crime victimisation survey’ Slovenia is a Central European country with a population of around two million people. It is located between Italy to the west and Hungary to the east, Austria to the north and Croatia to the south. The size of the country is 20,272 km2. More than half of the country is rural; 66 percent of the land area is forested. In 2020, 67,927 farms were registered in Slovenia. Agricultural outputs include forage plants

138

Gorazd Meško and Katja Eman

(18%), milk (15%), cattle (12%), wine (12%), fruits (10%), vegetables and horticultural products (9%), poultry (8%), cereals (7%), other animal products (7%) and other arable products (3%) (Forum for the Future of Agriculture, 2021). In general, the average farm is larger in 2022 than a decade previously, and the number of farms is declining (SURS, 2021). The area that is intensively developing is organic farming and tourist farms. To determine the challenges of measuring and evaluating crime victimisation in rural areas, including problems with non-reporting of various crime types in many rural communities (such as family violence and farm crime), the use of police discretion; and issues of familiarity, a national rural crime victimisation survey in Slovenia was conducted in 2020–2021.2 The survey was divided into six sections: in addition to demographic data, questions related to experience of crime, perceptions of crime and criminal justice, reporting crime and attitudes to police and crime prevention. Potential respondents were frst contacted by telephone and then sent a follow-up email containing a link to an online survey. 329 males (61.5%) and 206 (38.5%) females participated in the survey (n = 534). Participants were divided into six age groups: most of the participants were 18–24 years of age (27.7%), followed by 25–34 years of age (24.9%), 45–54 (19.5%), 55–64 (13.7%), 35–44 (11.2%) and 65 and above (3.0%). The national survey on farm victimisation was conducted in all 12 regions in Slovenia. Most participants were involved in a full-time farming business (69.1%). Parttime farming businesses (8.6%) and hobby farms (16.5%) are also not rare in Slovenia. Few participants are retired and no longer producing on-farm (0.6%). In Slovenia, the transfer of farm activity from parents to children is common on farms over successive generations. As elsewhere in the world, rural areas in Slovenia are often viewed as idyllic and safe, often as nature areas where people withdraw from urban life (and urban problems). However, rural communities have particular characteristics, needs, priorities and security problems. Results of the Slovene National Farm Crime Victimisation Survey confrm past fndings from studies of crime in rural areas by others (Weisheit & Donnermeyer, 2000; Barnett & Mencken, 2002; Harkness, 2021).

Experience with crime To learn more about prior victimisation, participants were asked if they or someone on their farm has ever been a victim of a crime or ofence. Results reveal that almost a third (31.6%) of respondents or their relatives have experience with crime. Property crime is prevalent in Slovene rural areas. The most often reported crime forms are theft (money and jewellery, crops, timber, livestock, fuel, agricultural machinery), fraud (insurance fraud, non-payment of services, crops or livestock, non-payment of overnight stays on a tourist farm), robbery and burglary of a warehouse or car, milk vending machine or vending machine for selling agricultural products), vandalism and damage to foreign property, threats, damage to vineyards or orchards, deliberate scattering of rubbish in a feld or meadow, larceny, poaching

Victims of farm crime

139

on agricultural land or illegal felling of trees in the forest. Furthermore, participants were asked if they had ever been victims of theft from their farm, and 41.8 percent responded positively. Thus, it is concerning that people were often victims of property crime (most often thefts and burglaries) more than once. Less common, but still present, is the planting of cannabis on maise plantations. Exceptions are disruption of property and neighbourly disputes and border attacks or fghts. We can also include driving in the natural environment and poisoning livestock. A particular case in Slovenia is the setting of iron bars in cornfelds to damage machinery and destroy crops.

Crime reporting Crime reporting is not specifcally high, with less than a quarter (23.6%) of respondents indicating that they reported the crime to the police. Most often reported crimes to the police are for property crime (theft, fraud, robbery, burglary, vandalism, illegal waste disposal, larceny and poaching). Farm machinery, registered vehicles, livestock and crops, wood, equipment and tools (non-mechanised), farm supplies and inputs, and money or personal items are often stolen. Only 24.9 percent of victimised respondents reported the theft to the police; and only 6.9 percent of victimised respondents indicated that the stolen item was recovered. Interestingly, respondents did not indicate reporting of any interpersonal violence. This confrms the problem of reporting victimisation in rural families. The main reason for non-reporting is the slow detection of the perpetrator and the lack of interest of the police. McCall and Homel (2003) note that undeclared crime is among the most important factors limiting the efective implementation of on-farm crime prevention measures.

Perception of crime and criminal justice Respondents did not indicate a particular concern about crime in their local area. Indeed, only 3.6 percent classify a crime as a severe problem and 20.2 percent as a less serious problem. For approximately a third of respondents (32.2%), crime is not considered a problem in their local area. Furthermore, respondents were asked how worried they were about crime occurring in their local area, with responses revealing a bit higher concern about possible victimisation of respondents. Table 10.1 shows that respondents indicate the highest levels of worry (fairly worried and very worried) concern their home being broken into and something stolen (44.9%) and having things stolen from outside the farm house (44.8%). Respondents expressed a lower concern relating to being physically attacked by strangers, which can be explained that they see themselves as strong persons or that they are usually not alone on the farm (other family members or dogs present at the farm). An essential fact is how people perceive crime in their rural environment. Furthermore, people’s perceptions present a vulnerability to crime, which, as described earlier, means that the individual is not capable enough to protect or defend himself/herself and the property or needs more time to recover from victimisation.

140

Gorazd Meško and Katja Eman

Related to that, table 10.2 presents perceptions of individual crime forms as problematic from the respondent’s perspective. The three most serious problems concerned illegal waste disposal (33.1%), followed by two interpersonal ofence types (sexual assault/rape, 24.3%; domestic violence, 24.0%). Just over a ffth of respondents also believe that animal torture (22.3%), deforestation (21.7%), contamination of food or feed (21.5%) and deliberate damage to property or vehicles (21.2%) are also severe problems in their local area. TABLE 10.1 Worry about diferent forms of crime

How worried are you about crime occurring in your local area? n = 534

Having your home broken into and something stolen Having things stolen from outside your farm house Being mugged and robbed Having things stolen from your car or other vehicle Being physically attacked by strangers Having your personal items stolen from you while you are out and about

Very worried %

Fairly worried %

Neutral %

Not very worried %

Not at all worried %

14.6

No answer %

30.3

24.2

19.1

34.0

8.4

16.9

27.9d

24.9

17.0

3.7

9.6

16.1 15.5

18.7 22.8

27.7 24.7

20.8 21.3

5.8 5.6

10.9 9.9

17.0

13.3

20.6

27.9

11.6

9.6

15.4

21.5

21.5

23.8

7.7

10.1

TABLE 10.2 Perceptions of crime forms in rural areas

How much of a problem these things are in your area? n = 534

Very A little bit Neutral Not very Not at all No serious serious serious serious answer % % % % % %

Illegal shooting Illegal waste disposal Deliberate damage to property or vehicles Cultivation of illicit crops/drug production Animal activism People being drunk or rowdy in public places Fraud

12.7 33.1 21.2

17.2 34.8 21.3

23.0 15.5 27.3

24.0 6.0 15.9

13.5 1.5 4.9

9.6 9.0 9.4

14.8

20.0

24.5

21.3

9.4

9.9

12.0 6.9

19.9 21.3

28.8 29.0

20.8 22.7

8.2 11.0

10.3 9.0

17.8

25.1

24.9

17.8

5.1

9.4 (Continued)

Victims of farm crime

141

TABLE 10.2 (Continued)

How much of a problem these things are in your area? n = 534

Very A little bit Neutral Not very Not at all No serious serious serious serious answer % % % % % %

Poaching Speeding trafc/ hoon driving Illegal fshing Destruction of plantations with harmful substances Contamination of food or feed Deforestation Unlawful seizure of real estate Animal torture Domestic violence Sexual assault/rape

8.2 17.4 4.9 18.2

15.9 35.8 10.3 11.8

26.2 24.2 27.5 18.9

26.2 9.0 21.2 24.7

13.9 4.5 25.7 16.9

9.6 9.2 10.5 9.6

21.5 21.7 18.7 22.3 24.0 24.3

12.9 20.2 12.9 12.5 15.2 6.2

20.6 26.0 24.5 21.9 21.9 16.5

22.3 15.7 20.8 22.1 17.6 22.5

12.7 7.3 13.1 11.0 12.0 21.2

9.9 9.0 9.9 10.1 9.4 9.4

TABLE 10.3 Reasons for not reporting crime

n = 534

True

False

Reasons for not reporting crime

count %

count %

314 200 305 346 445 405 379 382 282

63.9 42.7 57.1 64.8 83.3 75.8 71.0 71.5 52.8

193 334 229 188 89 129 155 152 252

36.1 57.3 42.9 35.2 16.7 24.2 29.0 28.5 47.2

435

81.5

99

18.5

It may be difcult to tell if a crime has occurred A belief police would do nothing about it A belief that it is not serious enough to report If I have resolved the issue without police If I do not hold insurance Perpetrator known to me Cost of loss is less than the insurance excess Fear of revenge or retaliation by ofender A belief there is not enough evidence for police to proceed Other

Source: Note: Other includes a bad past experience with the police and the inaction of the police in the investigation despite the report; too complicated procedures; high probability of the need for a civil lawsuit.

Reporting crime Respondents reported diferent decisions about reporting thefts from their farms to the police. Almost a third of respondents (31.6%) would report any theft, but this increased to 60.5 percent of respondents who would report the crime depending on the caused damage. More detailed questions about why farmers (do not) report crime revealed that farmers often try to solve problems independently or in the local community without asking police for help (see Table 10.3).

142

Gorazd Meško and Katja Eman

Results reveal that almost two-thirds of respondents (63.9%) agreed that it might be difcult to tell if a crime occurred; 37.5 percent felt that the police would do nothing about it, and 57.1  percent thought that crime is not severe enough to report it. Almost two-thirds of respondents (64.8%) tried to solve the issue without police involvement. Another important reason for (not) reporting crime to the police is insurance. 83.3 percent of respondents would not report a crime if they do not hold insurance, and 71.0 percent would not report a crime if the cost of loss is less than the insurance excess. Finally, a solid reason for not reporting a crime to the police is also the personal knowledge of the perpetrator: 75.8 percent would not report a crime if the perpetrator is known to them or for fear of revenge or retaliation by the ofender (71.5%).

Conclusion Findings show that in Slovenia, patterns of farm crime victimisation are similar to fndings from previous studies internationally (Ceccato  & Dolmen, 2013; Bunei et al., 2014; Barclay, 2016; Harkness, 2021). Farms are vulnerable to ofending; farmers are routinely victims of crime. It is critical to prevent farm crime but also to address rural perceptions surrounding the likelihood and subsequent fear of farm crime, responses to farm crime when it occurs, and to improve reporting practices. As this chapter has shown, the types of crime that occur on-farm are highly unique to the rural context and simply do not apply to suburban and metropolitan spaces. Bringing these forms of victimisation to light draws attention to the unique nature of rural victim experiences, broadening knowledge about the nature of victimisation beyond the urban setting.

Notes 1 The engagement of farmers in informal (criminal) acts for fnancial gain is due mainly to the necessity for “survival and subsistence instincts and by the austerity issues facing the farming and food industries, rather than proft maximisation and greed” (Smith et al., 2017). 2 The survey is a part of the research program Security and safety in local communities – a comparison between rural and urban settings (2019–2024) and part of an international study led by an Australian rural criminologist, Alistair Harkness, whose farm crime survey was translated to Slovene and modifed for contextual specifcs.

References Anderson, K.,  & McCall, M. (2005). Farm crime in Australia. Canberra, ACT: The Australian Institute of Criminology, National Community Crime Prevention Programme. Retrieved from https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/fles/2020-05/farm-crime-inaustralia.pdf Barclay, E. (2016). Farm victimisation: The quintessential rural crime. In J. F. Donnermeyer (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of rural criminology (pp.  107–116). London: Routledge.

Victims of farm crime

143

Barnett, C.,  & Mencken, F. C. (2002). Social disorganisation theory and the contextual nature of crime in nonmetropolitan countries. Rural Sociology, 67(3), 372–393. Benson, S. R. (2016). Assisting rural domestic violence victims: The local librarian’s role. Law Library Journal, 108(2), 15–34. Bunei, E. K., Rono, J. K., & Chessa, S. R. (2014). Crime prevention on farms: The opinion of farmers. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 2(2), 209–224. Ceccato, V. (2016). Rural crime and community safety. London: Routledge. Ceccato, V., & Dolmen, L. (2013). Crime prevention in rural Sweden. European Journal of Criminology, 10(1), 89–112. Donnermeyer, J. F. (2017). The impact of crime on farms. International Rural Crime Conference. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Donnermeyer, J. F., & Barclay, E. M. (2005). The policing of farm crime. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 6(1), 3–17. Donnermeyer, J., & DeKeseredy, W. (2008). Toward a rural critical criminology. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 23(2), 4–28. Eman, K., & Bulovec, T. (2021). A case study of rural crime and policing in Pomurje region in Slovenia. Journal of Rural Studies, 85(2021), 43–51. Forum for the Future of Agriculture. (2021). Slovenia – The structure of agriculture. Retrieved from https://www.forumforagriculture.com/news_feature/slovenia/ Grossman, S. F., Hinkley, S., Kawalski, A., & Margrave, C. (2005). Rural versus urban victims of violence: The interplay of race and region. Journal of Family Violence, 20(2), 71–81. Grote, U., & Neubacher, F. (2016). Rural crime in developing countries: Theoretical framework, empirical fndings, research needs. ZEF Working Paper Series, 148(1), 28–43. Hacin, R., & Eman, K. (2019). Police ofcers perception of threats in urban and rural environments. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, 70(2018/5), 455–468. Hacin, R., & Eman, K. (2021). Kriminaliteta in zaznava varnostnih groženj pri policistih v urbanih in ruralnih skupnostih. In G. Meško (Ed.), Varnost v lokalnih skupnostih – med ruralnimi in urbanimi perspektivami (pp. 107–134). Maribor: Univerza v Mariboru, Univerzitetna založba. Harkness, A. (2017). Crime prevention on farms: Experiences from Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 3(2), 131–156. Harkness, A. (2021). Victorian farm crime survey: Results. Retrieved from https://express. adobe.com/page/H4jeQ3vvA7bsO/ Harkness, A., & Mulrooney, K. (2020). The future of rural crime prevention. In A. Harkness (Ed.), Rural crime prevention: Theory, tactics and techniques (pp.  319–329). London: Routledge. Jones, N. A., Lithopoulos, S., & Ruddell, R. (2016). Policing rural Indigenous communities: An examination of practices in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. In J. F. Donnermeyer (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of rural criminology (pp. 355–364). London: Routledge. Lovell, J. S. (2016). Understanding farm animal abuse: Legal and extra-legal factor. In J. F. Donnermeyer (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of rural criminology (pp. 137– 146). London: Routledge. Mawby, R. I. (2015). Exploring the relationship between crime and place in the countryside. Journal of Rural Studies, 39, 262–270. Mawby, R. I., & Yarwood, R. (2016). Rural policing and policing the rural: A constable countryside. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, 69(1), 54–61. McCall, M.,  & Homel, P. (2003). Preventing crime on Australian farms: Issues, current initiatives and future directions. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 268. Retrieved from https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/fles/2020-05/tandi268.pdf

144

Gorazd Meško and Katja Eman

McKechnie, G. (2019). NSW police force and rural crime. International Journal of Rural Law and Policy, 2. https://doi.org/10.5130/ijrlp.2.2019.6553 Mears, D. P., Scott, L. M., & Bhati, A. S. (2007). Opportunity theory and agricultural crime victimization. Rural Sociology, 72(2), 151–184. Meško, G. (2020). Rural criminology – A challenge for the future. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 28(1), 3–13. Meško, G., Hacin, R., & Eman, K. (Eds.). (2019). Nacionalna konferenca o varnosti v lokalnih skupnostih – Uvod v razpravo o varnosti v urbanih in ruralnih okoljih (konferenčni zbornik). Univerza v Mariboru: Fakulteta za varnostne vede. Ljubljana, Slovenia: University of Maribor. Retrieved from https://press.um.si/index.php/ump/catalog/view/449/528/776-1 Nicolson, N. (2015, February  23). Rural riders help combat countryside crime. Farmers Weekly. Retrieved from https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/crime/rural-riders-help-combatcountryside-crime Scorzafave, L. G., Justus, M., & Shikida, P. F. A. (2015). Safety in the global south: Criminal victimisation in Brazilian rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 39, 247–261. Smith, R. (2010). Policing the changing landscape of rural crime: A case study from Scotland. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 12(3), 1–15. Smith, R., & McElwee, G. (2013). Confronting social constructions of rural criminality: A  case story on ‘illegal pluriacvity’ in the farming community. Sociologia Ruralis, 53, 113–118. Smith, R., McElwee, G.,  & Somerville, P. (2017). Illegal diversifcation strategies in the farming community from a UK perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 53, 122–131. Somerville, P., Smith, R., & McElwee, G. (2015). The dark side of the rural idyll: Stories of illegal/illicit economic activity in the UK countryside. Journal of Rural Studies, 39, 219–228. SURS. (2021). Popis kmetijskih gospodarstev, Slovenija, 2020. Retrieved from https://www. stat.si/StatWeb/news/Index/9459 Weisheit, R. A.,  & Donnermeyer, J. F. (2000). Change and continuity in crime in rural America. In G. LaFree (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000 volume 1 – the nature of crime: Continuity and change (pp. 309–357). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Weisheit, R. A., Wells, L. E., & Falcone, L. E. (2006). Crime and policing in rural and smalltown America. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Yarwood, R. (2003). A (rural) policeman’s lot is not a happy one: Issues and eforts to police rural space in the United Kingdom. In G. Higgs (Ed.), Rural service and social exclusion (pp. 174–187). London: Pion. Yarwood, R., & Woof, A. (2016). Policing the countryside in a devolving United Kingdom. In J. F. Donnermeyer (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of rural criminology (pp. 375–386). London: Routledge.

CASE STUDY Metal rods in corn – when personal resentment exceeds all limits of normal

It was another ordinary autumn day in September 2018, when the farmer Bratuša, after the morning chores with the cattle on the farm, sat in the combine harvester and went to the cornfeld. After a few harvested rows, he heard a loud bang and felt friction in the front of the machine. Since breakdowns in the harvesting machines are expected, he did not pay special attention to the matter at frst. Only at home did he fnd out that a metal rod got caught in the blades of the harvesting machine, which severely damaged his combine. As information travels quickly in the countryside, farmer Bratuša soon realised that he was not the only one who hit a metal object with his machine during the harvest – a stainless steel pipe, about 20 cm long. It damaged the turbine, knife, counter knife and shredder, and caused almost €15,000 damage. Harvested corn was also useless because metal particles from the set rod and the damaged combine contaminated the harvest (ABE, 2019). In 2018, in some parts of Pomurje, a region in northeast Slovenia, padded metal objects appeared in individual cornfelds, which severely damaged corn harvesting machines. There were four such cases in diferent parts of the area controlled by the Murska Sobota Police Directorate, so police ofcers initially linked things to vandalism and juvenile mischief. But in 2019, these occurrences continued and started to escalate as many more metal objects were set and machines were damaged. Over six weeks, police listed 20 such cases, whose estimated damage to an individual combine harvester ranged from €10,000 to €20,000. It should be added that such unwise actions could also end in tragedy, as farmers’ lives are also endangered during the harvest when the combine strikes a rod. During silage, the parts caught by the combine fy into the machine with such force that the driver could be killed if he were hit (Hanžič, 2019). Police initially included all possible versions and suspects and intensively collected notices about the unknown perpetrator. However, as events had taken place

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-18

146

Gorazd Meško and Katja Eman

in a very small area in the municipalities of Apače, Benedikt and Gornja Radgona in the preceding four weeks when several harvesters were deliberately destroyed or damaged, police ofcers slowly narrowed the list of suspects (ABE, 2019; Hanžič, 2019). The perpetrator caused 13 combine harvesters to be destroyed in less than a month. The farmers were outraged and also expressed this with protests and said they would take matters into their own hands. The desperation of the farmers is understandable because right when they should have started the harvest, someone out of hatred was setting up metal rods and destroying the harvesting machines. The victimisation manifested itself in numerous ways. One signifcant problem was that thousands of livestock would be left without fodder due to unharvested corn, and thus the number of livestock would need to be reduced. Harvester owners were no longer hoping for a record harvest, and many hectares remained unharvested. The consequences would also be visible in the stables. So, they are already thinking about how many heads of livestock they will have to put away due to lack of fodder, even though this is their primary activity. The damage caused by the loss of crops is enormous, as the new combine costs around €50,000 and the indirect damage caused by the loss of crops and fodder for livestock is hundreds of thousands of euros. Farmers cannot aford such costs. Owing to the potential danger of these acts of negligence, farmers were denied the opportunity to harvest the felds by the service providers for fear of damaging the harvesters, which is quite understandable. Farmers angrily demanded action from the authorities, better results from the police investigation and a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture. They also said that they would settle accounts with the vandal themselves if they caught him in the feld. Here it is evident how such situations are sometimes resolved in rural communities. Police in 2019 had not yet been able to fnd the perpetrator. However, it has once again shown how closed the countryside can be when it comes to sharing information and cooperating with law enforcement. However, in the end, certain information also reached the police, who could only conduct an informative interview with a local man suspected by farmers of setting up sticks in the cornfelds. Things went so far that farmers would walk in front of harvesters, looking for iron traps while the harvester performed machine work in their feld. The problem is that metal detectors did not detect these rods (modern harvesters already have such a detector installed). At the same time, the perpetrator carefully camoufaged the pieces in the felds, attaching them directly to the corn with coloured stripes. As almost all combine harvesters in the area had been damaged, farmers conducted actual search operations in the cornfelds. Although they look at each stem separately, the steel rods were often hidden under the leaves. Such work, though, eventually brought positive results, as the farmers frst found a metal rod that was taped to a corn stalk and then a bottle full of ammunition – a so-called slingshot bomb. It must be noted that doing so was extremely dangerous and could have had tragic consequences. The parts of the harvester’s rods and knives that fy around can seriously injure or even kill a person, and the material damage to the machine is enormous.

Victims of farm crime

147

Fortunately, the Bratuša brothers discovered the sticks and reacted rationally, informing the police who secured the traces and obtained fngerprints and a DNA sample and soon found the perpetrator. The whole afair dragged on for four years and the farmers were justifably worried and disappointed. It turned out that the farmer Bratuša was the main target of the perpetrator, who allegedly told him years ago that he would destroy him and his farm. The perpetrator was the father of the farmer Bratuša, with whom he and his family broke up years ago, and out of sheer anger and revenge, he set metal rods in the farmers’ crops and destroyed working machines. This example confrms the fndings of other studies that in rural areas, there is a relatively high proportion of interpersonal violence or violence due to interpersonal disputes. Metal rods and bottles with slingshots in cornfelds indicate that interpersonal confict and personal resentment can sometimes go beyond all bounds of normal.

References ABE. (2019). Železne palice v koruznih poljih: Policisti ne izključujejo nobenih možnosti, storilca intenzivno iščejo. Retrieved from https://vestnik.si/clanek/crna-kronika/zelezne-palicev-koruznih-poljih-kmetje-hodijo-pred-kombajni-so-na-delu-morda-avstrijci-735011 Hanžič, M. (2019). Na kmeta je v koruzi čakala plastenka, polna nabojev s šibrami. Retrieved from https://www.24ur.com/novice/svet/na-kmeta-je-v-koruzi-cakala-plastenka-z-naboji. html

11 VICTIMS OF HATE CRIME IN RURAL COMMUNITIES Melina Stewart-North, Rachel Hale and George Van Doorn

Rural victimisation is a multi-faceted and complex issue that has only recently gained sustained attention in academic work. Existing hate crime research has tended to focus on ‘the urban’, where there are typically higher populations and multicultural interactions (Goodson  & Boufard, 2020; Huey  & Ricciardelli, 2017). This urban-centric focus has neglected a cohort of community members that already struggle with under-representation and under-resourcing – those that live in ‘the rural’ (Chakraborti & Garland, 2003). Individuals that live outside of dense metropolitan areas have experiences that are unique and worthy of attention, not solely to gain further insight into rural perspectives but also to subsequently address the needs of rural community members, including victims of crime. Whilst there is a growing body of literature related to hate crime, this research tends to focus more on those who have committed the act rather than victim experiences and the impact upon them. Even less scholarly work exists about victimisation experiences in the rural context. This chapter provides defnitional clarity and insight into current explanations of hate crime to highlight the unique aspects of this form of ofending. It ofers an overview of rural victims’ experiences of hate crime covering several diferent groups – ethnic minority and First Nations peoples, individuals who identify as LGBTIQA+, people with disabilities and alternative subcultures. Importantly, approaches to prevent hate crime victimisation are explored.

Understanding hate crime Though various defnitions exist, hate crime generally refers to “those forms of violence and micro-aggressions which are directed towards people on the basis of their identity, ‘diference’ or perceived vulnerability” (Hardy  & Chakraborti, 2020, p. 3). Hate crime is not easily defned, and the term has been described as

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-19

Victims of hate crime in rural communities

149

“contentious” (Chakraborti, 2016, p.  578). Despite its title, experts in the feld highlight that this type of ofending extends beyond hate to include various other drivers such as prejudice, intolerance and bias (Hardy & Chakraborti, 2020, p. 14) whereby “the underlying motive does not have to manifest itself as ‘hate’ for the ofence to be thought of as a hate crime”. In this sense, the word ‘hate’ is perceived to be “problematic, ambiguous and in many cases an inaccurate descriptor of the ofences with which it is commonly associated” (Hardy  & Chakraborti, 2020, p. 20). Explanations of hate crime encompass a range of infuences beyond hate, such as hostility and feelings of weakness or inadequacy (Chakraborti & Garland, 2012), and convenience or boredom (Hardy & Chakraborti, 2020). Public and political discourse may have an efect in devaluing members of minority groups (American Psychological Association, 2022) and thus, perpetrators may commit acts of aggression against members of these groups out of fear, anger and/or ignorance (Roberts et al., 2013). Interestingly, it has been suggested that few hate crimes are perpetrated by strangers (Roberts et al., 2013), with hate crime victims often knowing the perpetrator (Mason, 2005). Although fear, anger, ignorance and familiarity appear to be predictors of hate crimes, for other minority groups the ofenders’ motivations are more self-serving. Specifcally, Roberts and colleagues (2013) argued that, for those victims with a disability, an ofender’s motivation appeared to be either sexual gratifcation or fnancial gain. In contrast to individual explanations, a macro perspective of hate crime victimisation points to the harmful process of ‘othering’ – the projection of fear on the basis that some members of society are perceived to be diferent and therefore a risk or threat (Paterson et al., 2019). The centrality of othering to hate crime is highlighted by Hardy and Chakraborti (2020, p. 13) who explain that hate crime cannot be divorced from the power dynamics present within modern societies which reinforce the ‘othering’ of those who are diferent . . . hate crime emerges as a response to the threats posed by ‘others’ when they attempt to step out of their ‘proper’ subordinate position within the structural order. Hate crime can therefore be a vehicle for the expression and preservation of privilege as contended by Perry (2009a, p. 71), who states that “hate motivated violence is used to sustain the privilege of the dominant group and to police the boundaries between groups by reminding the other of his or her place”. In this sense, the target of hate crime is not only the individual victim but the broader community to which that person is believed to belong, with the ofender sending a ‘message’ to that community that they are unwelcome and unwanted (Perry, 2001). On these grounds, hate crime is unique compared to other crimes because of the distal efects it can have on the broader community (Perry, 2015). Major global and political events also appear to infuence (or ‘trigger’) hate crimes, stirring fear amongst communities which manifests in interpersonal violence based on real or perceived group belonging. Considering the trends in hate

150

Melina Stewart-North, Rachel Hale and George Van Doorn

crime against major events from 1992–2016, Nolan et  al. (2020) highlight how hate crimes in the United States rose to a level not observed in more than a decade in November 2016 – the month Donald Trump was elected as President of the United States. Hate crimes have also increased in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Canada, for example, police reported crime statistics indicated that hate crime targeted at Indigenous peoples had increased from 29 hate crimes in 2019 to 73 in 2020 with 51 of those crimes occurring in rural areas (Statistics Canada, 2020). The occurrence of hate crime can therefore be infuenced by broader macro social and political forces beyond the individual perpetrator.

The psychological impacts of hate-based ofending on victims Research demonstrates that experiencing hate crime has negative psychological outcomes (Craig, 2002). Victims of violent hate crimes, for example, can experience post-traumatic stress, reduced self-esteem, depression and anxiety (APA, 2022). Consistent with these fndings, lesbians and gay men who were subjected to hate crimes were more likely to experience depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, crime-related fear, a reduced sense of mastery (Herek et al., 1999) and suicidal ideation and attempts (Duncan & Hatzenbuehler, 2014). Cramer et al. (2012) showed that, compared to heterosexual victims, sexual orientation minority violent crime victims were more likely to experience psychological symptoms (such as acute stress, general anxiety). With respect to the experiences of Latvian LGBT hate crime victims, Dzelme (2008) found that the psychological and social implications included decreases in self-confdence, increased fear and feelings of vulnerability and social withdrawal and avoidance. Although each experience of victimisation is unique, the psychological outcomes of hate crime victimisation appear similar across groups. A  study of ethnic immigrant groups in North America, for example, assessed the association between hate speech and suicide rates (Mullen & Smyth, 2004). Even after controlling for the size of the ethnic immigrant groups and the suicide rates in their respective countries, hate speech was a positive predictor of suicide rates. Other studies assessing race-based hate crimes have shown that being a victim has implications for an individual’s self-identity, feelings of powerlessness and sense of security (Craig-Henderson & Sloan, 2003). These outcomes are similar to those for LGBT victims mentioned previously. The severity of the impact of hate-based crimes for bisexual, gay and lesbian victims has been shown to be afected by the availability of social support, disruption to identity and anger regarding victimisation (Noelle, 2003). These fndings have implications for treatment. Victims of race-based hate crimes may be hesitant to disclose because of perceived, or actual, discrimination. For example, Jackson et al. (2017) found that sexual minority men had low disclosure rates regarding hatebased victimisation because of perceived victim-blaming and discrimination (that is, secondary victimisation). These issues are likely amplifed in rural communities.

Victims of hate crime in rural communities

151

Experiences of rural hate-crime victimisation International rural hate crime victimisation statistics are yet to be collated; more specifcally, hate crime in a rural context has rarely been the subject of inquiry (Chakraborti  & Garland, 2004a). The terms ‘hate crime’ (Chakraborti, 2016), ‘rural’ (Stewart-North, 2019) and ‘victimisation’ are each ambiguous – leading to difculties measuring and comparing this form of victimisation. From the insights that do exist surrounding victim experiences of hate crime, those groups that are generally underrepresented in victimisation research – ethnic minorities and First Nations peoples, Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Intersex-Queer-Asexual plus (LGBTIQA+) persons, people with disabilities and individuals who participate in alternative subcultures – all have unique experiences of hate-based ofending. The following overview canvasses the literature on these diferent groups to enable an understanding of their unique experiences of hate crime victimisation. This is not intended to imply that victims fall neatly into homogenous categories – individual experiences of victimisation are impacted by a range of intersecting characteristics and circumstances whereby identities are interwoven, and victims may identify with more than one of the groups discussed here. Nuances exist within groups as well, with victimisation afected by personal circumstances and factors such as class, age and ability, as examples. The diverse and intersectional nature of hate crime victimisation cannot be underestimated despite the way that scholarship and policy has neatly grouped victim experiences to date (Hardy  & Chakraborti, 2020).

Ethnic minorities One of the most highly researched forms of hate crime is that which is perpetrated against ethnic minorities. It is important to note that racist hate crime includes a diversity of victims such as “asylum seekers, Gypsies and Travellers, international students, those in mixed-race relationship, new and emerging communities, and refugees” (Hardy & Chakraborti, 2020, p. 153). These persons are relatively less visible than others in the gamut of racist hate crime research and policy. Belonging to an ethnic minority group can prove difcult when living in a rural community which is not highly diverse, impacting the day-to-day lives of ethnic minority community members. Research conducted by Chakraborti and Garland (2003) in rural Sufolk, a county in England, revealed that verbal and physical abuse represents a pattern of regular victimisation, with racial harassment being a pervasive issue for many ethnic minority persons. Muslim groups and asylum seekers have been identifed as a common target for hate-based ofences since the ‘War on Terror’ following the September 11 attacks in the United States. Further, the widespread negative media coverage of Muslim and minority ethnic communities contributed to an increase in negative attitudes displayed in the United Kingdom (Chakraborti & Garland, 2004b). Chakraborti and Garland (2004b) found that a lack of familiarity and the process of ‘othering’

152

Melina Stewart-North, Rachel Hale and George Van Doorn

marginalises ethnic minority communities, making newcomers the target of hostility and potentially hate crime. They posit that the romanticisation of rural areas as problem free (the ‘rural idyll’) has played a signifcant role in the oppression and marginalisation of these groups and has hidden their victimisation experiences. In studying Eastern European migrants’ experiences of hate crime in the semirural county of Lincolnshire in England, Lumsden et al. (2019) found that reports of hate crime had increased following the United Kingdom’s European Union Membership Referendum (‘Brexit’). Their sample consisted of white migrants (described as a ‘hidden’ group who are not typically recognised in hate crime research) and explored their experience of hate crime, including their use of public space. Interestingly, they initially found that participants were not identifying their experience as constituting hate crime despite that it met the legal threshold – the reason being that their experiences were considered a routine part of everyday life. Migrant experiences of hate crime were described as ‘banal’ and ‘everyday’ with the most common form of abuse being verbal. As a result of hate crime victimisation, it was reported in the Lincolnshire study that some participants withdrew from public life owing to subsequent fear which ‘silenced’ them and made them ‘invisible’. Forms of resistance to othering and hate were also reported, highlighting the agency of victims to choose how they respond. As with Garland and Chakraborti’s (2006) research, Lumsden et al. (2019) highlighted the nuanced nature of hate crime victimisation against minorities as contingent on diferences in time, place and space, cautioning against generalisations of ethnic minority experiences of hate crime in rural areas.

First Nations peoples First Nations people’s experiences of violent racism is not a contemporary phenomenon. In many countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, there is a long history of racialised colonial violence. Contemporary hate crime victimisation of First Nations people has received scholarly attention, though this often does not consider the rural dimensions of victimisation. One exception is Perry’s (2009b) study of the experiences of 300 Native Americans conducted from 1999–2001 from remote and rural reservations across seven states in the United States regarding their experiences of hate crime. Contextualising the fndings, Perry outlines how Native Americans have historically been ‘geographically marginalised’ (ultimately segregated) through expulsion and relocation to reservations, the rural ‘locus’ of which contributes to continued marginalisation. Within these rural and remote locations, the borders between Indian and white land are heavily policed, and Native Americans are frequently the victims of racial profling and over policing at the border. Extending upon this, the hostile actions of white citizens against Native Americans when they travel beyond the reservation reportedly deterred participants from venturing beyond the reserve line out of fear of what might happen “out there” (Perry, 2009b, p. 408). The reservation in the rural location is therefore a designated safe area, whereas areas outside of this

Victims of hate crime in rural communities

153

boundary are considered unsafe. This shows how rural spaces can be experienced as both safe and unsafe spaces simultaneously for victims of hate crime. From a sociological perspective, Perry (2009b) raises an important point that existing defnitions of hate crime – contingent on an act being perpetrated that breaks the criminal code – do not capture those harms which are considered legal. This can include state sanctioned violence and systemic and institutional racism, pertinent to the victimisation of First Nations peoples, particularly in rural locations. These harms may be grounded in hate, prejudice and bias but are not ofcially captured as such under rigid defnitions of what constitutes hate crime.

LGBTQIA+ victims Existing data on the experiences of transgender and gender diverse people is sparse (Woods & Herman, 2015). Many law enforcement agencies throughout the world exclude gender identity as a motivation for hate crime or may not even have appropriate hate crime laws (Chakraborti & Garland, 2004a). Generally, though, sexual orientation-based hate crimes have been recorded to be more frequent in rural spaces compared to urban ones, attributed to the less progressive views often held in rural communities (Wilson & Ruback, 2003). Here, researchers assume that life is worse for members of the LGBTQIA+ community in rural areas because of conservative beliefs (Stotzer, 2010). Transgender people, particularly, endure discrimination as members of the LGBTQIA+ community (Hardy & Chakraborti, 2020). Indicative of the intersectional nature of hate crime victimisation, trans people of colour (such as black and Latina trans women in the United States, for example) experience even higher rates of hate crime victimisation compared to white trans persons (Xavier et al., 2005). A motivation behind transphobic hate crime is the perception that the expression of gender identity is not traditional and therefore a threat. In some rural communities, hegemonic conceptualisations of gender expect men to be unemotional and to look and perform in a masculine or ‘macho’ way; conversely women are expected to refect proper physical standards of femininity and to be passive and subordinate to men. Hetero-normativity (that being attracted to members of the opposite sex is the norm) and cis-normativity (that identifying with one’s birth sex is the norm) govern these traditional frameworks. This may contradict the way that LGBTIQA+ persons express their identity. Individuals that do not conform to or reinforce these norms and preferences may be perceived to destabilise the ‘naturalised’ community (Jamel, 2018). Hate crime can therefore be an expression of the disapproval, disgust and disdain held by persons from the hegemonic group against those who diverge from the norm, often out of fear of the unfamiliar, unknown or diferent. In the United States, the Movement Advancement Project ‘Where We Call Home’ series explored the experience of LGBTQIA+ persons in rural communities. Whilst many LGB and trans people live and thrive in rural communities, the series found that they also experience unique discrimination owing to four

154

Melina Stewart-North, Rachel Hale and George Van Doorn

interrelated factors: (i) increased visibility (owing to the smaller populations in rural and remote areas); (ii) ripple efects (owing to the close-knit nature of some rural communities); (iii) fewer alternatives (owing to a lack of service options in rural communities); and (iv) fewer support structures (owing to the geographic isolation of rural and remote areas). Though the series did not focus specifcally on hate crime, these interrelated factors have strong potential to impact rural hate crime victim experiences relative to victims located in urban areas. For example, increased visibility within rural areas may afect vulnerability to hate victimisation; the ripple efect could make victims of hate crime reluctant to report due to shame and stigma; having fewer alternatives may afect access to appropriate supports for rural hate crime victims; and fewer support structures may increase an individual’s vulnerability to hate victimisation as well as their ability to access informal supports.

People with disabilities In comparison to racist and transphobic hate crime, prejudice-based ofences perpetrated against persons with disabilities have drawn signifcantly less attention in international research and policy (Hoong Sin, 2015). It is particularly difcult to ascertain the rural dimensions of hate crimes against people with disabilities due to the lack of research in this area. There is evidence to suggest a broad spectrum of unreported abuse and harassment of individuals with disability, with much higher rates of repeat victimisation than individuals without disability (Gilson et  al., 2001). Individuals with disabilities experience victimisation diferently from those who experience hate crime that is motivated by ethnicity, religion or race (Hoong Sin, 2015), with ofences more likely to be sexual or fnancial in nature, committed by someone the victim personally knows, such as employers, family members and neighbours. This makes precise victimisation statistics difcult to ascertain with victims possessing higher fears of retaliation due to knowing the ofender (Gilson et al., 2001). Research has shown that a general lack of disability awareness amongst the front-line staf means that even if reports are made, they may not have been fled correctly if at all (Gilson et al., 2001). In rural areas, these shortcomings may be amplifed because of the lack of services available in relatively remote communities (Hale, 2022). Further research is required, though, to provide insights into hate crimes against disabled people in rural, remote and regional locations.

Alternative subcultures Some victims of hate crime do not fall under the common categories stipulated by hate crime legislation, such as individuals who pursue an alternative lifestyle (Hardy  & Chakraborti, 2020). Alternative subcultures are those that sit outside of the mainstream (on the ‘fringe’), for example goth, punk or emo. Individuals may stand out because of their physical appearance including tattoos, piercings and hairstyles. This is a topic of contention in the hate crime space in that ethnic minorities have no choice regarding the colour of their skin, nor do individuals

Victims of hate crime in rural communities

155

with disabilities have control over the capacities of their bodies. However, those who belong to alternative sub-cultures may be viewed as pursuing a lifestyle choice which could be avoided (Garland & Hodkinson, 2015). Like most statistics regarding hate crime records, it is difcult to know the precise number of crimes that occur against participants of alternative sub-cultures (Goulding  & Saren, 2009) because of low reporting and thus recording rates. Reporting on the experience of Gypsies and Travellers in rural England, James (2020) grouped the harms experienced by victims into three categories – ‘subjective harms’ (crimes), ‘systemic harms’ (processes and structures), and ‘symbolic harms’ (language and speech). 225 hate incidents and crimes were reported in the study, including serious damage to property (20%) and serious physical assault (15%). The hate that Gypsies and Travellers faced impacted their ability to stop and stay within areas as they felt unsafe. Gypsies and Travellers were found to be reluctant to report their victimisation due to its everyday, minor nature. Some Gypsies and Travellers cannot report because they are not recognised by the legislation as an ethnic identity (for example, show people who are involved in the travelling carnival or circus industry). In Australia, a study of the lived experiences of male goths in rural communities (Ragusa  & Ward, 2016) indicated that conservatism and hegemonic norms impacted participants sense of safety and belonging in rural areas. Community perceptions of goths as homosexual, which were not necessarily accurate, were reported to be the drivers of interpersonal violent victimisation in geographically remote areas. Participants reportedly turned to information communication technologies (ICTs) as safer spaces which ‘empowered’ them to share the ofine harms they had experienced in rural places.

Preventing rural hate crime victimisation Prevention of hate crime in rural areas is contingent on addressing community dynamics and building connections amongst residents. Nolan et al. (2020, p. 126) position “community atmosphere” as key to hate crime prevention. Based on survey data of West Virginia community residents in the United States, the authors found that hate crime is less likely to occur when residents are more connected, providing for increased informal control across the community. Using a framework of levels of community dependence, confict/frustration and interdependence, they found that ‘interdependent’ communities – characterised by trust and cohesion – are the safest when it comes to hate crime victimisation and fear of such victimisation. A potential explanation they provide is that interdependent places “reduce the superfcial diferences of its members to the extent that they do not appear as dangerous or as imminent a threat as they might if they were not well known to everybody” (Nolan et al., 2020, p. 125). Preventing rural hate crime should therefore focus on building interdependent communities. Addressing hate crime is the responsibility not only of criminal justice agencies but of communities more generally. Models of community policing are useful

156

Melina Stewart-North, Rachel Hale and George Van Doorn

here, reliant on community input and intelligence to inform police responses to hate crime. The ‘Not In Our Town’ (NIOT) movement, a national campaign in the United States, provides a model for such an approach which has proven particularly efective in addressing hate crime, including in rural communities (Whalen et  al., 2013). One example is in rural Northern California, where a group called the Shasta County Citizens Against Racism (SCCAR) work alongside law enforcement to address hate crime. Initially when the group identifed that a hate crime had occurred, they notifed the police and monitored the police responses to ensure that appropriate action was taken. The group has since evolved from ‘watchdog’ to ‘partner’ (O’Mara, n.d) and assists police to identify and respond to hate crimes, as well as supporting residents to report.

Conclusion From the evidence that exists about victim experiences, ofences committed based on hate, prejudice, bias and jealousy (however so defned) have an enormous impact on individual victims as well as their broader community. Though hate crime as a term may be contentious, clarity exists regarding the pervasive impact this form of ofending has on not only the direct victims but on the broader community. The groups highlighted in this chapter are by no means an exhaustive list of all persons who experience hate-based victimisation. Owing to a reluctance by victims to report – primarily out of fear of retaliation or thinking their experiences do not reach the threshold for reporting – coupled with the challenges measuring hate crime, the true extent and prevalence of this form of victimisation is unknown. These challenges and barriers are likely amplifed in rural and remote communities. Hate crime laws are critical to “act as a deterrent to potential ofenders; to convey a message of solidarity to minority victims; to signal society’s condemnation of such acts; and to acknowledge the additional harms caused by hate crimes” (Hardy & Chakraborti, 2020, p. 1347) but this is only so if victims understand these laws and what constitutes a hate crime and therefore perceive the harm they experience as a crime to be reported. Supporting victims of hate crimes in rural areas to report to police is crucial to uncovering the true extent of hate crime. This can be achieved by improving police responses so that reporting is taken seriously. It is also important that tailored services and responses exist in rural locations, which are generally lacking in justice and community services infrastructure (Hale, 2022), so that victims can access appropriate services to meet their unique needs. This could include the availability of alternative approaches to justice to meet the needs of victims who may prefer a more restorative model of justice for the harms they have experienced (Hardy & Chakraborti, 2020). The prevention of hate crime in rural, remote and regional locations is even more critical. This may be achieved by strengthening communities so that residents are interdependent, more connected and trusting of one another. Addressing this form of ofending requires targeted efort not only at the individual level but also at the macro-institutional and socio-cultural level. The drivers of hate-based

Victims of hate crime in rural communities

157

ofending extend beyond the individual perpetrator to society as a whole, refecting on the way in which we understand, negotiate and approach diversity and diference.

References American Psychological Association (APA). (2022). The psychology of hate crimes. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/advocacy/interpersonal-violence/hate-crimes Chakraborti, N. (2016). Mind the gap! Making stronger connections between hate crime policy and scholarship. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(6), 577–589. Chakraborti, N., & Garland, J. (2003). An ‘invisible’ problem? Uncovering the nature of racist victimisation in rural Sufolk. International Review of Victimology, 10(1), 1–17. Chakraborti, N., & Garland, J. (2004a). England’s green and pleasant land? Examining racist prejudice in a rural context. Patterns of Prejudice, 38(4), 383–398. Chakraborti, N., & Garland, J. (2004b). Rural racism. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Chakraborti, N., & Garland, J. (2012). Reconceptualising hate crime victimization through the lens of vulnerability and ‘diference’. Theoretical Criminology, 16(4), 499–514. Craig, K. M. (2002). Examining hate-motivated aggression: A review of the social psychological literature on hate crimes as a distinct form of aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(1), 85–101. Craig-Henderson, K., & Sloan, L. R. (2003). After the hate: Helping psychologists help victims of racist hate crime. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(4), 481–490. Cramer, R. J., McNiel, D. E., Holley, S. R., Shumway, M., & Boccellari, A. (2012). Mental health in violent crime victims: Does sexual orientation matter? Law and Human Behavior, 36(2), 87–95. Duncan, D. T., & Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2014). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender hate crimes and suicidality among a population-based sample of sexual-minority adolescents in Boston. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), 272–278. Dzelme, I. (2008). Psychological efects of hate crime – Individual experience and impact on community. Attacking who I am. A qualitative study. Latvian Centre for Human Rights. Retrieved from http://cilvektiesibas.org.lv/site/attachments/30/01/2012/Naida_noziegums_ENG_ cietusajiem_Internetam.pdf Garland, J., & Chakraborti, N. (2006). Recognising and responding to victims of rural racism. International Review of Victimology, 13(1), 49–69. Garland, J., & Hodkinson, P. (2015). Alternative subcultures and hate crime. In N. Hall, A. Corb, P. Giannasi, & J. G. D. Grieve (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook on hate crime (pp. 226–236). London: Routledge. Garland, J., Spalek, B., & Chakraborti, N. (2006). Hearing lost voices: Issues in researching ‘hidden’ minority ethnic communities. British Journal of Criminology, 46(3), 423–437. Gilson, S., Cramer, E. P., & DePoy, E. (2001). Redefning abuse of women with disabilities: A paradox of limitation and expansion. Aflia, 16(2), 220–235. Goodson, A., & Boufard, L. A. (2020). The rural/urban divide: Examining diferent types of assault through a social disorganization lens. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(17–18), 3530–3553. Goulding, C., & Saren, M. (2009). Performing identity: An analysis of gender expressions at the Whitby Goth Festival. Consumption Markets and Culture, 12(1), 27–46. Hale, R. (2022). Rural access to justice. In A. Harkness, C. Peterson, M. Bowden, C. Pedersen, & J. F. Donnermeyer (Eds.), Encyclopedia of rural crime. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

158

Melina Stewart-North, Rachel Hale and George Van Doorn

Hardy, S.-J., & Chakraborti, N. (2020). Blood, threats, and fears: The hidden worlds of hate crime victims. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (1999). Psychological sequelae of hate-crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(6), 945–951. Hoong Sin, C. (2015). Hate crime against people with disabilities. In N. Hall, A. Corb, P. Giannasi, & J. G. D. Grieve (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook on hate crime (pp. 193–206). London: Routledge. Huey, L., & Ricciardelli, R. (2017). Policing “domestic disturbances” in small towns and rural communities: Implications for ofcer and victim safety. Canadian Review of Sociology, 54(2), 198–215. Jackson, M. A., Valentine, S. E., Woodward, E. N., & Pantalone, D. W. (2017). Secondary victimization of sexual minority men following disclosure of sexual assault: “Victimizing me all over again. . .”. Sex Research & Social Policy, 14, 275–288. Jamel, J. (2018). Transphobic hate crime. London: Palgrave Macmillan. James, Z. (2020). Gypsies’ and Travellers’ lived experience of harm: A critical hate studies perspective. Theoretical Criminology, 24(3), 502–520. Lumsden, K., Goode, J.,  & Black, A. (2019). “I  will not be thrown out of the country because I’m an immigrant’: Eastern European migrants’ responses to hate crime in a semi-rural context in the wake of Brexit. Sociological Research Online, 24(2), 167–184. Mason, G. (2005). Hate crime and the image of the stranger. British Journal of Criminology, 45, 837–859. Movement Advancement Project. (2019). Where we call home: Transgender people in rural America. Retrieved from https://www.lgbtmap.org/policy-and-issue-analysis/rural-trans. Mullen, B., & Smyth, J. M. (2004). Immigrant suicide rates as a function of ethnophaulisms: Hate speech predicts death. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(3), 343–348. Noelle, M. (2003). The psychological efects of hate-crime victimization based on sexual orientation bias: Ten case studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI3110536 Nolan, J. J., Nicewarner, R. L., & Momen, R. E. (2020). Preventing rural hate crime. In A. Harkness (Ed.), Rural crime prevention: Theory, tactics and techniques (pp. 113–127). London: Routledge. O’Mara, T. (n.d.). Working with law enforcement: How an anti-racist community group evolved from being a watchdog to a partner of law enforcement. Retrieved from https://www.niot.org/ action-hub/local-lessons/working-law-enforcement Paterson, J. L., Brown, R., & Walters, M. A. (2019). Feeling for and as a group member: Understanding LGBT victimization via group-based empathy and intergroup emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(1), 211–224. Perry, B. (2001). In the name of hate: Understanding hate crimes. London, UK: Routledge. Perry, B. (2009a). Hate crimes: Understanding and defning hate crime. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group. Perry, B. (2009b). ‘There’s just places ya’ don’t wanna go’: The segregating impact of hate crime against Native Americans. Contemporary Justice Review, 12(4), 401–418. Perry, B. (2015). Exploring the community impacts of hate crime. In N. Hall, A. Corb, P. Giannasi, & J. G. D. Grieve (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook on hate crime (pp. 47–58). London: Routledge. Ragusa, A., & Ward, O. (2016). Caught in the web: Male Goths using online ICTs to transcend rural reality. Communication, Politics and Culture, 49(2), 1–24. Roberts, C., Innes, M., Williams, M., Tregidga, J., & Gadd, D. (2013). Understanding who commits hate crime and why they do it. Welsh Government. Retrieved from https://orca.

Victims of hate crime in rural communities

159

cardif.ac.uk/58880/1/understanding-who-commits-hate-crime-and-why-they-do-iten.pdf Stewart-North, M. (2019). ‘Good accessibility is good business’: A study of the intersection of rurality and access to criminal courts. Unpublished honours thesis. Churchill, VIC: Federation University Australia. Stotzer, R. L. (2010). Seeking solace in West Hollywood: Sexual orientation-based hate crimes in Los Angeles County. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(8), 987–1003. Whalen, K., Alqadi, N., & McInerny, L. (2013). Building stronger, safer communities: A guide for law enforcement and community partners to prevent and respond to hate crimes. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Ofce of Community Oriented Policing Services. Wilson, M. S., & Ruback, R. B. (2003). Hate crimes in Pennsylvania, 1984–1999: Case characteristics of police responses. Justice Quarterly, 20, 373–398. Woods, J. B., & Herman, J. L. (2015). Anti-transgender hate crime. In N. Hall, A. Corb, P. Giannasi, & J. G. D. Grieve (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook on hate crime (pp. 278–288). London: Routledge. Xavier, J. M., Bobbin, M., Singer, B., & Budd, E. A. (2005). Needs assessment of transgendered people of color. International Journal of Transgenderism, 8(3), 31–47.

CASE STUDY Beard cutting as hate crime in a rural Amish community

The Amish – a distinctive ethnic-religious group – is growing rapidly across North America (Donnermeyer, 2021). The Amish adopt a lifestyle that values rural space with a reliance on farming. The growth of the Amish population coupled with a preference for open spaces means that the Amish are often established in rural locations. In these areas, they stand out because of their traditional and highly conservative lifestyle relative to modern norms – their clothing and modes of transport, for example, difer markedly and are overt indicators of diference. Despite that the Amish as a minority group are clearly distinguishable in public space, the act of bias-motivated attacks against the Amish – ‘claping’ – is considered rare (Hickey, 2016). Very few studies of claping have been conducted, but one existing study has shown the typical ofender to be based in rural or small towns (Byers  & Crider, 2002). There may be factors skewing ofcial anti-Amish hate crime data, including the inability of Amish victims to report in conservative sects that choose not to use modern technology, a reluctance to involve law enforcement and challenges proving a religious basis for the victimisation. One of the most high-profle incidents of alleged Amish hate crime is the case of the ‘Bergholz Barbers’ which occurred in the state of Ohio in the United States. Interestingly, in this instance, members of an Amish splinter group were charged with hate crimes perpetrated against other Amish people, begging the question of whether it is possible for hate crimes to be committed against one’s own community. Bergholz is a rural village located in Jeferson County, Ohio. The ‘Bergholz clan’ was founded in 1995 as a new Amish settlement in the isolated area. Led by Sam Mullet Sr, it was intended to be ultra-conservative in nature and digressed from traditional Amish practices. In 2011, Mullet Sr was ordained as Bishop, and fve years later in 2006 he excommunicated the deacon of the community, a move which infuenced more than a third of the Amish population to leave the area.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-20

Victims of hate crime in rural communities

161

In 2011, fve beard-cutting attacks were perpetrated against nine diferent victims across eastern Ohio. Amish family members of the excommunicated members, and those who opposed the Bergholz community were targeted indicating that they were retaliatory attacks. The crimes involved forced entry into the victim’s homes late at night wherein the beards of Amish men and the hair of Amish women were cut of, and in two attacks outsiders were lured into the Bergholz community only to be ambushed (Zwi, 2014). In September 2012, 16 Amish Bergholz residents, including Mullens Sr, were subsequently charged and convicted with conspiracy to violate a federal hate crime law. At trial, the prosecution had to prove that the attacks were religiously motivated – perpetrated because of the victims’ religion. In the Amish community, uncut hair, particularly the beard of a man, is a religious symbol, pointing to the religious undertones of the crimes. In 2014, the convictions of 15 of the Bergholz attackers were overturned by the 6th United States Circuit Court of Appeals, owing to legal technicalities whereby jurors were deemed to be instructed incorrectly as to how to determine the role of religion in the attacks (Laboni, 2014). The predominant basis for the attacks was determined on appeal to be the longstanding intra-family dispute rather than religion. Whether the Bergholz clan can be considered Amish has been questioned by Amish expert Donald Kraybill, who labelled the perpetrators ‘Renegade Amish’. The use of violence, for example, is not acceptable in Amish culture. Kraybill therefore disputes that the case constitutes ‘Amish-on-Amish’ violence (Zwi, 2014). In this sense the Bergholz case may be seen to align with a conceptualisation of hate crime as being an act perpetrated by one group (the ‘in’ group) against another (the ‘out’ group) based on diference, regardless of the minority group status of both the perpetrators and victims in this instance. The Bergholz case signifed the frst application of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act 2009, named after the victims of particularly violent hate crimes in the United States. Matthew Shepard was murdered in the predominantly rural state of Wyoming, his death transforming advocacy and policy responses to anti-gay hate crime in rural America (Morrow, 2019). However, the passing of the legislation appears not to have had a signifcant impact on decreasing the number of hate crimes reported in the rural states of Maine, Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia and Vermont, where the number of sexual orientationmotivated crimes in fact increased in 2010 following the enactment of the law (Morrow, 2019). This shows that legislative reform, whilst undoubtedly important, does not necessarily have preventive power – just because laws exist criminalising certain behaviours does not necessarily mean that potential perpetrators are deterred and prospective victims are protected. Focusing on community dynamics is important to inform appropriate placebased strategies to prevent hate crime victimisation. Cases like the Bergholz Barbers’ highlight the conceptual and operational ambiguity and complexity surrounding ‘hate crime’ which is ultimately a social construction open to interpretation

162

Melina Stewart-North, Rachel Hale and George Van Doorn

(Chakraborti  & Garland, 2012). Continuing to develop understandings of hate crime occurrences from the victim’s perspective is critical to improving access to justice for victims, including exploration of how hate crime victim experiences difer in rural and remote communities compared to urban victimisation.

References Byers, B., & Crider, B. (2002). Hate crimes against the Amish: A qualitative analysis of bias motivation using routine activities theory. Deviant Behaviour, 23(2), 115–148. Chakraborti, N., & Garland, J. (2012). Reconceptualizing hate crime victimization through the lens of vulnerability and diference. Theoretical Criminology, 16(4), 499–514. Donnermeyer, J. (2021). How do I count thee? Various angles for examining the doubling tomes of the Amish. The Journal of Plain Anabaptist Studies, 1(2), 104–125. Hickey, S. (2016, March 23). Amish rarely attacked, expert says. Marion Star. Retrieved from https://www.marionstar.com/story/news/2016/03/23/amish-rarely-attacked-expertsays/82169924/ Laboni, R. (2014, August 27). Hate crime convictions overturned in Amish hair-cutting attacks. CNN. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/27/justice/amishhair-cutting-convictions/index.html Morrow, D. F. (2019). Matthew Shepard 20 years later: Social, political, and hate crimes’ impact in rural America. In H. Seikk & L. D. Meyer (Eds.), The legacies of Matthew Shepard. London: Routledge. Zwi, A. (2014). Hate crimes and Ohio’s ‘renegade Amish’. Late Night Live, Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ latenightlive/hate-crimes-and-ohios-renegade-amish/5879174

12 RURAL VICTIMS OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS Rob White

This chapter considers the victims of the climate crisis in rural settings. Adopting an eco-justice perspective, it conceptualises victimhood in terms of environmental justice (where the victim is human), ecological justice (where the victim is specifc environments) and species justice (where the victims are animals and plants). Climate change induced bushfres, foods and droughts as short-term disasters and longer-term trends are impactful, not only on residents, but also on fora, fauna and a rural sense of place. Associated harms, such as smoke and algae blooms, similarly afect home and habitat. The chapter argues that when examining the dynamics of and responses to environmental victimisation, concepts such as harm and ecocide are vital. The role of the State in the victimisation of rural communities and rural spaces – including by poor legislation, non-action and political malfeasance – is considered, as are the contributions of globalisation and growth in the climate endgame, as evidenced by the impact of rural and remote mining operations on environments, and widespread deforestation linked to the rise of fex crops such as soya bean and palm oil.

Global warming and victimology The heating of Planet Earth accelerated with the advent of the industrial revolution 250 years ago in Europe, and the last ffty years have seen further rapid escalation in global temperatures (IPCC, 2014; WMO, 2020; Van der Velden & White, 2021). Since the 1980s, each successive decade has been warmer than any preceding decade since 1850 (WMO, 2020, p. 3). As a consequence of this global warming, the world is now at crisis point.

Nature of climate changes The climate crisis is manifest across key geophysical and social indicators. For example, changes are evident in volatile temperatures, increases in ocean heat DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-21

164

Rob White

content, more frequent marine heatwaves, ocean acidifcation and the melting of sea ice and glaciers. High impact and extreme weather events have become the norm. These phenomena afect all corners of the globe, from wildfres in California, Greece and Australia through to severe storms and foods in Germany, Bahrain and Jordan. Record temperatures are being experienced regularly, from Norway to New Zealand, in summer and winter, and droughts are entrenched in places such as Southeast Asia and the Greater Horn of Africa (Stefen et al., 2019; WMO, 2020). Climate disruption means that there are sharp changes in weather, as longerterm weather and climate patterns shift outside previous norms and wreak havoc in regards to precipitation and the composition and direction of predominant wind and ocean currents. For climate-exposed sectors, regional economic efects to agriculture, forestry, fshery, energy and tourism have increasingly been identifed (IPCC, 2022). Uncertainty has thus likewise become part of the new normal. Responding to rapid climate change demands systemic planning and implementation of appropriate and efective mitigation and adaptation strategies. However, current systems of natural resource extraction and use, and widespread contamination of the natural world, simultaneously undercut potential measures to bolster resilience. For example, mining (both legal and illegal) impacts on water systems and land use that can be counter-productive in regard to climate responses (for example because of deforestation and diminishment of the water table). Many of these activities take place in rural and remote locations which makes them even harder to monitor and regulate (Zabyelina & Uhm, 2020). Water use is likewise subject to contestation, frequently involving powerful actors who threaten the livelihood and cultural wellbeing of local family farmers and Indigenous communities in pursuit of corporate interests and private gain (Brisman et al., 2018; Eman et al., 2020). Food security is similarly put under threat by unscrupulous companies that wish to transform lands for the purposes of ‘fex crops’ such as soya bean and palm oil, and the planting of genetically modifed seed in order to maximise yield. Biopiracy is achieved through patents and outright force, and forests are sacrifced on the altar of proft in countries such as Indonesia and Colombia, where the players may difer, but the processes are similar (Goyes, 2019; White, 2018). Climate change adaptation and the bolstering of ecosystem and human resilience are thus likewise shaped, and hindered, by the very social forces that contribute to the problem in the frst place. Across both cause and consequence, the deadly hand of corporate greed and government maladministration casts its terrible shadow. The iron fst of the neoliberal market and corrupted state power enable global heating in the same moment that it restricts needed responses to it.

Eco-justice and victimisation Within critical green criminology, three broad approaches to justice have been identifed, each with its specifc conceptions of what is harmful (White, 2013).

Rural victims of the climate crisis

165

Eco-justice includes consideration of environmental justice that is framed as an extension of human rights, ecological justice that acknowledges the rights of the environment, and species justice that includes non-human animals and plants. Acknowledging ‘victim’ status is crucial to understanding the ways in which environmental harm afects both human and non-human, as well as assessments of insecurity and potential risks. The risks and threats to eco-systems, humans and fora and fauna are considerable, and growing. Extreme weather events form part of this picture. But so do compounding threats and events, such as the continued extinction of species on a massive scale, widespread deforestation in regions such as the Amazon and Southeast Asia, and contamination of air, land and water everywhere. Droughts are killing soil and arable land, pollution including micro-plastic pollution in the oceans is destroying the lifeblood of many species, and biodiversity (the number of diverse plants and animals) is diminishing around the world. In the midst of this are specifc climate-related factors: “Global warming will progressively weaken soil health and ecosystem services such as pollination, increase pressure from pests and diseases, and reduce marine animal biomass, undermining food productivity in many regions on land and in the ocean” (IPCC, 2022, pp. 14–15). Many ecosystems are under strain, and the natural world is being altered in profound and potentially permanent ways. Landscapes themselves are also changing as glaciers melt and tectonic plates adjust, as are waterways, ocean currents and the biotic habitats home to the world’s living entities. Ecocide, the destruction and degradation of Nature, has become a global phenomenon, not limited to specifc zones and geographical territories (White, 2018). Climate change is thus rapidly and radically altering the very basis of world ecology; meanwhile, one million species are considered at threat of extinction (IPBES, 2019; Portner et al., 2021). The future does not bode well for those which depend upon a sustainable web of life underpinned by predictable change and regularity of season.

Rurality and climate justice The impacts of climate change are both universal and selective. In some ways, every person and every part of the globe are afected by the processes and dynamics described previously. No one and no place are immune from the negative impacts of rapid global warming. Nonetheless, some places and some communities are more likely to sufer greater harm than others. This is due to geographical location as well as capacity for physical and social resilience.

Communities in peril It has long been observed, for example, that those countries which have done the least to contribute to global warming, such as the island nation of Tuvalu in the Pacifc, are subject to its earliest and most devastating efects. This is partly a matter

166

Rob White

of geography, since low-lying island and countries, such as Bangladesh, face greater peril from rising seas than those in less precipitous physical circumstances. It is also a question of resources, since some countries, such as the Netherlands, might be low-lying but have fnancial and engineering capacity to provide bufers to sea level incursions (Bulkeley & Newell, 2010). Existing inequalities are made worse by global heating. Thus, the divides between the global North and South (used here both metaphorically and geographically) are deepening as crises related to food production and distribution, energy sources and pollution and changing weather patterns (including droughtrelated) sweep the planet. The result is that the most dispossessed, marginalised and poor of the world’s population continue to sufer the brunt of food shortages, undrinkable water, climate-induced migration and general hardships in their day-to-day lives (IPCC, 2014; Oxfam, 2018; Clark et al., 2020; Watts et al., 2021). Similarly, mining, farming and tourism communities, often set in non-urban locations are beset by intense weather events such as droughts, foods, storms, bushfres and cyclones but without the urban infrastructure of police and emergency services, hospitals and medical staf, rapid transit systems and logistical support. Prolonged drought may be linked to algae blooms that directly threaten irrigation systems and potable drinking water. Fires and fre smoke can kill stock as well as native endemic animals. Throughout it all, the fundamental causes of ‘once in a century’ but now regularly occurring weather events are rarely traced back to climate change and the industries most implicated in global heating. In Australia, the de-population of rural areas due to systemic disadvantage, changing weather conditions and technological innovation is being exacerbated by climate change (Hughes et al., 2016). Losses in services and employment make it even more difcult for communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change and to garner needed government support and private investment. These trends are not unique to this continent. Projections about human vulnerability include the observation that “In rural areas vulnerability will be heightened by compounding processes including high emigration, reduced habitability and high reliance on climate-sensitive livelihoods” (IPCC, 2022, p. 12). This further reduces the likelihood that infrastructures and basic services will be available or developed, including emergency services. The consequences of global warming are highly gendered as well. For example, male suicide rates amongst farmers experiencing drought are high compared to female rates (Alston, 2012). On the other hand, in continental Africa where almost 80  percent of women who are economically active report agriculture as their primary economic activity, few are actual landholders (UNDP, 2013). Around the world, climate change is leading to changed gender workloads and increased workloads for women (UNDP, 2013; Alston et al., 2018), but less access to land, fnancial services, and technology and lower social status compared to male farmers weakens the ability of women to be resilient in the face of the burdens associated with climate change. Hence, gender inequalities and gender diferences carry with

Rural victims of the climate crisis

167

them immense social costs, especially for the health and wellbeing of farms and farmers under stress. Yet none of this happens by chance. As the scientifc evidence has established (IPCC, 2013, 2014, 2018; WMO, 2020), global warming is not ‘natural’. It is mainly due to the continued collusion of key political leaders with the fossil fuel industries and other degraders of the environment. Collectively they are diminishing emission controls and environmental protections, burning forests and fracking oils, and in some instances encouraging violence against Indigenous peoples and local farmers. They are actively ‘doing bad’. The ‘they’ in this instance refers to big corporations, governments and the combination of the two.

The role of the state In the midst of the increasing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, “Global fossil fuel consumption subsidies increased by 50% over the past 3 years, reaching a peak of almost US$430 billion in 2018” (Watts et al., 2019, p.  1836). Governments are using taxpayer monies to pay perpetrators to pollute. Thus, “Even today, States subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of [USD]$5.2 trillion per year, or 6.3 percent of global GDP [gross domestic product]. Another trillion goes to support natural resource overexploitation” (UNHRC, 2019, p. 9). In Australia, a 2021 report found that “Every year Australian governments provide subsidies worth billions to fossil fuel producers and major users . . . these subsidies cost state, territory and federal governments in Australia $10.3 billion in 2020–21” (Campbell et al., 2021, p. 10). Governments therefore continue to use public taxpayer monies to fund activities that are direct causes of the problems which in other UN forums they profess they want to diminish. As the United Nations Human Rights Council pointed out, while the problems associated with climate change are epic and urgent, the response from powerful governments has been appalling (UNHRC, 2019, p. 8): In Brazil, President Bolsonaro has promised to open up the Amazon rainforest for mining, end demarcation of Indigenous lands and weaken environmental agencies and protections. China is moving to end reliance on coal, while exporting coal-fred power plants abroad and failing to implement its regulations for methane emissions at home. In the United States of America, until recently the world’s biggest producer of global emissions, President Trump has placed former lobbyists in oversight roles, adopted industry talking points, presided over an aggressive rollback of environmental regulations and is actively silencing and obfuscating climate science. The net result of these actions, some of which continue regardless of changes in political leadership, has been a broad shift in government administration away from the public interest and in favour of specifc private industry and frm interests.

168

Rob White

These trends were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic in the years 2020–2021. For instance, in British Columbia, Canada, pipeline companies forged ahead with construction work in light of the fact that the coronavirus regulations required that groups of protesters could not congregate. This especially impacted Indigenous landowners who have long protested the violation of their sovereignty as well as the climate impacts of the project. Meanwhile in the United States, fossil fuel companies were relieved of oversight by the Environment Protection Agency in regards pollution controls, on the basis that the coronavirus makes adherence to regulation too difcult. These sorts of facilitating actions by states accelerate carbon emissions by industry even further. In more recent times, the pipeline project has been allowed to continue apace in Canada (but not without continued ferce resistance from grassroots groups), while in the United States under President Joe Biden, at the time of writing it is court action, not political intervention, that is helping stem the tide of adverse industrial activities in places such as the Gulf of Mexico.

Action against climate inaction Wedge politics is alive and well, and this includes in rural areas. Miners are pitted against farmers, and tourism operators against foresters, while corporate managers and government elites do what they can to secure advantaged position by which to exploit human and natural resources. Overlaying these conjunctural conficts is the longer-term issue of how to transition to a low carbon future. In some countries this is a guided process, one that involves active hands-on government policy and fnancial support. In others, it is the market that is leading the way, billionaires putting their money up front as they forge new competitive advantage and new commodities to own and control. Green capitalism is comfortable with each option, as separately or together, it all adds up to the growth economy status quo (van der Velden & White, 2021). People on the ground have been largely excluded from such decision-making.

Change the system, challenge the power In the end, however, environmental harm is closely associated with exploitation of natural resources that bring proft to powerful companies (both privately owned and state-owned). The science of climate change tells us that the environment cannot bear the weight of these exploitations any longer (UNEP, 2019; IPCC, 2022). The problem is not the science. Rather, as the planet’s temperature keeps rising, it is sectional self-interest which is preventing the application of measures to mitigate global warming and address fundamental aspects of adaptation to change. Ultimately, preventing further global heating, therefore, is about politics. The strategies that nation-states use to deal with environmental concerns are contingent upon the social and class interests associated with political power. The power of transnational corporations fnd purchase in the interface between the interests and preferred activities of the corporation and the specifc protections

Rural victims of the climate crisis

169

and supports profered by the nation-state. The latter can be reliant upon or intimidated by industries and companies. Tax revenue and job creation, as well as media support and political donations, hinge upon state-corporate synergies. Politicians also fnancially beneft from knowledge they obtain and decisions they make while in ofce. This undermines the basic tenets of democracy and collective deliberation over how best to interpret the public or national interest. The fght for a better, cleaner planet must fundamentally involve assertion of democratic control over land, air, water and energy. This means, for example, changing how companies operate, including the fow of their investments, and how their activities are regulated by the nation-state. It means stopping the bail-out of private companies using public money. It means prioritising social need. Ultimately, it means expropriating corporate owners of their private property. In all cases, it means re-asserting the public interest – that is, the majority worker and consumer interest.

Urgency linked to geography The citizens of Tuvalu, the Maldives and Kiribati do not have the luxury of debating climate change and ‘just transitions’ to apparently greener options – the waters are already diminishing their living spaces; their present concerns are focussed on survival, including where to move and how to make a diferent kind of future for themselves. So, too, farmers experiencing prolonged periods of drought in California or Ethiopia, or fshers witnessing the disappearance of familiar species and the advent of exotic new ones, are seeing their lives and livelihoods changing right before their eyes. The land and the water, the mountain and the valley, are no longer the same. And this is threatening not only the nature-human interface in the rural and the remote, but the meaning of ‘place’ itself for those long served by where and how they live. Migration is also part of the new normal. As systems of food production collapse and reserves of freshwater vanish, species, including humans, are forced to be on the move. This is happening on land. It is also occurring in the oceans as nutrients and temperatures modify habitat, shift currents and bring death to coral reefs. Existential threat is being met with mass migrations across sky, water and land surface as birds, fsh and footed creatures attempt to fnd new homes amongst the carnage. The lack of ecological sustainability, exacerbated by climate change and the rampant plunder of remaining natural resources, is translating into extreme situations, systemic victimisations, and intensifed competition for scarce resources. A ‘me frst’ and fortress mentality will only make things worse in the long run (White, 2014). History, so far, has shown that mercy for those at the front end of calamity is rare and seldom seen. Civilisations have come and gone, the vulnerable have sufered famine and persecution, and First Nations have been dispossessed and marginalised. For those at the frontline of climate change and its consequences, the land and the sea are no longer a refuge and a safe place. Increasingly, natural disaster created in and through human design (directly and systemically as a result of capitalist ethos

170

Rob White

and endeavour) is threatening the viability of what once was depended upon to nourish, protect and satisfy. The warning signs are there in the bush, the lakes, the mountains and the meadows. Those best placed to listen to the earth are among the frst to be overwhelmed by its demise. This is inevitable without transformative change to the basic political economy of late capitalism.

Ecocide on a planetary scale Ecocide describes an attempt to criminalise human activities that destroy and diminish the wellbeing and health of ecosystems and species within these, including humans. Climate change and the gross exploitation of natural resources are leading to our general demise – hence increasing the need for just such a crime. It is notable, therefore, that in 2021, the United Kingdom-based campaign ‘Stop Ecocide International’ (through the Stop Ecocide Foundation, 2021) commissioned an independent expert panel to put together a legal defnition of ecocide relevant to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The proposed defnition says that “For the purpose of this Statute, ‘ecocide’ means unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts”. The Expert Panel defnition is oriented toward the ICC and accordingly, it refects a human rights emphasis. A more expansive defnition would incorporate an eco-centric perspective that views the environment as having value for its own sake. Ecocide, from this viewpoint, should be framed as a crime not only against humans but against non-human environmental entities (White, 2022). Ideally, then, cases should be able to be brought to court on behalf of non-human entities such as rivers, mountains, trees and birds, if they are afected by ecociderelated acts and omissions. The urgency and impetus for making ecocide a crime has been heightened by the woefully inadequate responses by governments, individually and collectively, to global warming and to threats to biodiversity. Very little action has been taken by states or corporations to rein-in the worst contributors to the problem. Carbon emissions are not decreasing, and habitat is being destroyed as pollution continues to contaminate land, air and water, afecting all that live on the planet. Underpinning this systemic destruction and degradation are specifc corporate and elite interests. These are inseparable from the dominant global mode of production – capitalism – the driver of which is an inherent growth imperative (Kramer, 2020; Whyte, 2020). Under these social arrangements, ecocide is inevitable. The causes of global warming are directly associated with carbon emissions, the result of the fossil fuel industry and deforestation. Species extinction stems from unfettered resource extraction, and the contamination and modifcation of nature linked to the growth imperatives of global capitalism. These are crimes of ecocide, crimes that involve foreknowledge, government-provided legitimacy, and unprecedented harms to humans, ecosystems and non-human environmental entities such as rivers, mountains, trees, birds and koalas.

Rural victims of the climate crisis

171

From the point of view of criminology, including rural criminology, the ofenders ought to be held to account and victims recognised and compensated. How best to bring carbon criminals and environmental vandals to justice is, however, the crucial question of our age. As with crimes of the powerful generally, there are profound difculties in dealing with corporate criminality and state-corporate crime. And yet, climate justice demands nothing less than transformative change in circumstance – our future depends on it.

Conclusion For people living and working in rural and remote areas of the earth, the signs and consequences of climate change are plain to see. Frequently, they are the frst to experience the trials and tribulations of a planet heating up too rapidly for the good of those, human and non-human, who rely upon its bounty and its predictability. As this new age of uncertainty unfolds, the victims of climate change will refect geographical location as much as social position. The challenge, and the urgency, lies in reversing present warming trends and fnding new ways to feed, clothe, transport, house and protect the interests of the majority, including the interests of the non-human. The science of climate change has identifed the causes, consequences and technical solutions to global warming. Yet, at the end of the day, this means little if strategic interventions are not informed by the necessity for fundamental social transformations. This means not only speaking ‘truth to power’ but confronting the powerful. In this, the distinction between rural and urban evaporates, because what counts are our shared universal human interests that must take precedence over and above private sectional interests. It is these that need to be prioritised above all else. This is the fulcrum of contemporary class struggle and ultimately the pivot point in the fght for climate justice.

References Alston, M. (2012). Rural male suicide in Australia. Social Science and Medicine, 74, 515–522. Alston, M., Clarke, J., & Whittenbury, K. (2018). Contemporary feminist analysis of Australian farm women in the context of climate changes. Social Sciences, 7(2), 16–31. Brisman, A., McClanahan, B., South, N., & Walters, R. (2018). Water, crime and security in the twenty-frst century: Too dirty, too little, too much. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Bulkeley, H., & Newell, P. (2010). Governing climate change. London: Routledge. Campbell, R., Littleton, E., & Armistead, A. (2021). Fossil fuel subsidies in Australia: Federal and state government assistance to fossil fuel producers and major users 2020–21. Canberra, ACT: The Australia Institute. Retrieved from https://apo.org.au/sites/default/fles/ resource-fles//apo-nid311955.pdf Clark, H., Coll-Seck, A. M, Banerjee, A., Peterson, S., Dalglish, S. L., Ameratunga, S., Balabanova, D., Bhan, M. K., Bhutta, Z. A., Borrazzo, J., Claeson, M., Doherty, T., El-Jardali, F., George, A. S., Gichaga, A., Gram, L., Hipgrave, D. B., Kwamie, A., Meng, Q., Mercer, R., Narain, S., Nsungwa-Sabiiti, J., Olumide, A. O., Osrin, D., Powell-Jackson, T., Rasanathan, K., Rasul, I., Reid, P., Requejo, J., Rohde, S. S., Rollins, N., Romedenne, M., Singh Sachdev, H., Saleh, R., Shawar, Y. R., Shifman, J.,

172

Rob White

Simon, J., Sly, P. D., Stenberg, K., Tomlinson, M., Ved, R. R., & Costello A. (2020). A future for the world’s children? A WHO-UNICEF-Lancet Commission. The Lancet, 395, 605–658. Eman, K., Meško, G., Segato, L., & Migliorini, M. (Eds.). (2020). Water, governance, and crime issues. Cham: Springer. Goyes, D. (2019). Southern green criminology: A science to end ecological discrimination. London: Emerald. Hughes, L., Rickards, L. Stefen, W., Stock, P., & Rice, M. (2016). On the frontline: Climate change & rural communities. Canberra, ACT: Climate Council of Australia. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2013). Working Group I contribution to the IPCC ffth assessment report climate change 2013: The physical science basis: Summary for policymakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www. ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014). Climate change 2014 synthesis report, approved summary for policymakers. Geneva: IPCC. Retrieved from https://www. ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2018). Special report: Global warming of 1.5C. Summary for policymakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2022). Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, summary for policymakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (2019). The IPBES global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Paris: Author. Kramer, R. (2020). Carbon criminals, climate crimes. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Oxfam. (2018). Reward work, not wealth. Nairobi: Oxfam. Pörtner, H. O., Scholes, R. J., Agard, J., Archer, E., Arneth, A., Bai, X., Barnes, D., Burrows, M., Chan, L., Cheung, W. L., Diamond, S., Donatti, C., Duarte, C., Eisenhauer, N., Foden, W., Gasalla, M. A., Handa, C., Hickler, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Ichii, K., Jacob, U., Insarov, G., Kiessling, W., Leadley, P., Leemans, R., Levin, L., Lim, M., Maharaj, S., Managi, S., Marquet, P. A., McElwee, P., Midgley, G., Oberdorf, T., Obura, D., Osman, E., Pandit, R., Pascual, U., Pires, A. P. F., Popp, A., ReyesGarcía, V., Sankaran, M., Settele, J., Shin, Y. J., Sintayehu, D. W., Smith, P., Steiner, N., Strassburg, B., Sukumar, R., Trisos, C., Val, A. L., Wu, J., Aldrian, E., Parmesan, C., Pichs-Madruga, R., Roberts, D. C., Rogers, A. D., Díaz, S., Fischer, M., Hashimoto, S., Lavorel, S., Wu, N., & Ngo, H. T. (2021). IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change. IPBES and IPCC. Retrieved from https://ipbes.net/sites/default/ fles/2021-06/20210609_workshop_report_embargo_3pm_CEST_10_june_0.pdf Stefen, W., Dean, A., & Rice, M. (2019). Weather gone wild: Climate change-fuelled extreme weather in 2018. Sydney, NSW: Climate Council of Australia. Stop Ecocide Foundation. (2021, June). Independent expert panel for the legal defnition of ecocide, commentary and core text. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/ static/5ca2608ab914493c64ef1f6d/t/60d7479cf8e7e5461534dd07/1624721314430/ SE+Foundation+Commentary+and+core+text+revised+%281%29.pdf United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2013). Overview of linkages between gender and climate change, gender and climate change: Asia and the Pacifc, Policy Brief 1. New York: Author.

Rural victims of the climate crisis

173

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2019). Emissions gap report. Geneva: Author. United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). (2019). Climate change and poverty: Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, A/HRC/41/39– 24 June – 12 July 2019, Agenda item 3, pp. 1–19. Geneva: UN. Retrieved from https:// digitallibrary.un.org/record/3810720/fles/A_HRC_41_39-EN.pdf?ln=en Van der Velden, J., & White, R. (2021). The extinction curve: Growth and globalisation in the climate endgame. Bingley: Emerald. Watts, N., Amann, M., Arnell, N., Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Beagley, J., Belesova, K., ... Costello, A. (2021). The 2020 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: Responding to converging crises. The Lancet, 397, 129–170. Watts, N., Amann, M., Arnell, N., Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Belesova, K., Boykof, M., ... Montgomery, H. (2019). The 2019 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: Ensuring that the health of a child born today is not defned by a changing climate. The Lancet, 394, 1836–1878. White, R. (2013). Environmental harm: An eco-justice perspective. Bristol: Policy Press. White, R. (2014). Environmental insecurity and fortress mentality. International Afairs, 90(4), 835–851. White, R. (2018). Climate change criminology. Bristol: Policy Press. White, R. (2022). Theorising green criminology: Selected essays. London: Routledge. Whyte, D. (2020). Ecocide: Kill the corporation before it kills us. Manchester: Manchester University Press. World Meteorological Organization (WMO). (2020). State of the global climate 2020. Geneva: WMO. Zabyelina, Y., & van Uhm, D. (Eds.). (2020). Illegal mining: Organized crime, corruption and ecocide in a resource-scarce world. London: Palgrave.

CASE STUDY My home is on fre1

January 2020 – Australia is burning. From Western Australia to Tasmania, Victoria to New South Wales, South Australia to Queensland, my country – my home – is ablaze. Flames are eating landscapes and habitats, smoke flls eyes and nostrils in Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney, and death accompanies the destruction everywhere. Here is the picture in a nutshell. So far, remembering that this is still the beginning of our fre season, and that fres in many instances continue to rage while new ones fare up, the damage is astonishing: • • • •

over one and a half billion animals dead – not including creatures such as lizards nor insects 26 humans dead because of the fres; with smoke-related mortality and morbidity rates likely to steeply rise in the coming weeks over 15 million acres burned out two-thirds of Australian’s annual emissions budget already expended

We have always had fres, but this is unique in its scope and ferocity. We have always been the driest and hottest continent, but none so more than now. 2019 was the hottest year on record, during which we experienced the driest day nationally (no rain anywhere in the country) and the hottest day country-wide (40 degrees Celsius; 104 degrees Fahrenheit as the national median temperature). Here are a few frst impressions of the ongoing catastrophe.

Scale This is big. To gain a sense of how big, consider the following comparisons: 2018 California fres = 2 million acres 2019 Amazon fres = 2.2 million acres DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-22

Rural victims of the climate crisis

175

2019 Siberian fres = 6.7 million acres 2020 Australian fres = 15 million acres (and growing) Consider that the fre smoke has created breathing problems in New Zealand some 2,000 kilometres away and has now reached Chile and the coast of South America. The smoke plume is predicted to circumscribe the globe. So far, the areas burning have been bigger in size than the entire country of Belgium, and the state of West Virginia. The smoke plume itself is larger than the United States, Canada or China.

Culpability The main culprits have been clearly exposed in the last few weeks. They include:

Our political ‘leaders’ Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison was in Hawaii on family vacation when fre fghters were dying back in Australia; the New South Wales Emergency Services Minister David Elliot was in London. The major political parties continue to back the fossil fuel industries. The prime minister consistently refused to meet with the ‘Emergency Leaders for Climate Action’, comprised of a group of former fre chiefs, who have been raising alarm at the fre potentials since April 2019. He now claims credit for calling in 3,000 members of the Australian Defence Force and reservists to assist with evacuations and logistical support for fre fghters – a case of shutting the gate once the horse has bolted.

The Murdoch press From climate denial to climate distraction, the Murdoch-owned media have played a key role in defending the fossil fuel industries, and then blaming the fres on ‘greenies’ (who ostensibly have prevented backburning, but who in reality have supported it) and then latterly pointing to ‘arsonists’ as the main cause of the fres, not climate change. They have supported the prime minister throughout his failures of leadership.

The fossil fuel industries The Adani mine in Queensland is still on the agenda, government talks with India about coal are still in train (albeit delayed), and Australia is now the world’s largest exporter of both coal and natural gas. Supported by sections of the international fnance community, there is little sign of a slow-down in these industries, in a country ranked 57 out of 57 on climate change action. What are these bodies culpable of? Ecocide – the preventable destruction and degradation of environments, with efects at the planetary level. We have been forewarned of the consequences of global warming both generally (via the reports

176

Rob White

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and specifcally (through the particular dire predictions of fre and emergency service professionals). There are no excuses for inaction and those perpetrating the harms need to be held to account.

The victims The victims have included humans, ecosystems and non-human animals and plants. Scorched earth and toxic air have killed many and maimed more. And the end is not in sight. Not only do the fres continue, but without habitat to sustain them, many kangaroos, koalas and other creatures will perish in the days to come. Species extinction is skyrocketing. Extinction, by defnition, refers to ‘never seen again’. In Canberra, operations have been cancelled due to the smoke pollution seeping into hospital corridors. Sydney’s drinking water catchments are under threat from ash fall-out. We still do not fully comprehend the compounding health efects of land, water and air pollution of this nature and on this scale. Residences have burnt to the ground, but so too have orchards and vineyards, tourist outlooks and ‘get away’ destinations. Dark tourism may well fnd a new home – but mainstream industries of all kinds will take years to recover, if at all. Meanwhile, through it all, are the thousands of Country Fire Service, Rural Fire Service and Country Fire Association (the name varies according to state) volunteers still fghting, still ‘volunteers’. They are exhausted. Many are sufering extreme fatigue as months of activity and the terrors of scale take their toll. Their employers are in a quandary. Government assistance is a pittance. The trauma has many dimensions and has lasting consequences. New words and concepts punctuate our conversations. We now speak of ‘megafres’, in which separate fres suck each into the other to become even larger. We now speak of fres making their own weather – the pyrocumulonimbus clouds themselves generate dry lightning and fre tornadoes, thereby igniting even more fres. New ways to describe hell on earth. What the science does not tells us is how ‘not normal’ the ‘new normal’ actually is. What the facts and stats do not convey is the emotional shock and the spiritual shake-up of seeing your home burn. This is not ‘natural’. This is a crime.

Note 1 Source: written by Rob White and frst published in the British Green Criminology Newsletter, 2020.

13 THE NATURAL AND BUILT RURAL ENVIRONMENTS AS VICTIMS Louise Nicholas and Suzie Thomas

Harms can have impact on everything on the planet. Victims may be environments, biomes, species, society or heritage (both natural and cultural) – protected or unprotected; ofcially recognised or not. These issues have very signifcant implications for humanity. The social distinctions we see in other areas of crime and social policy are mimicked with environmental harms. As this chapter demonstrates, certain groups are disproportionately afected by harms against the natural and built environment. The lack of traditional power in some groups causes an even greater issue with environmental harms: there is little attention paid to those groups most in need of protection; not all cultural practices are considered equally ‘worthy’ of protection; and even where some protection is ofered, it is disproportionately inefective to those without power on the global arena. Crimes against the natural environment – such as illegal deforestation, wildlife trafcking and toxic waste dumping – now amass as much as USD$213 billion a year (Steiner, n.d.) in proceeds to criminals, but the problems which arise receive limited attention from lawmakers and policy-makers. Despite this, there is an increasing awareness that crimes against the environment have a massive cost, not just economically but also socially and culturally. This chapter begins by exploring non-human rights and non-human animals as victims, before exploring the victimisation faced by forests and woodland internationally. It considers the concept of inaction as causing disproportionate victimisation to marginalised rural communities in the context of climate change and corporate crimes and harms. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the victimisation of cultural and built heritage, and the harm that is caused to wider society. A case study which accompanies the chapter is of the destruction of the Juukan Gorge cave system in Western Australia by the mining company Rio Tinto in 2020, an account at the intersection of environmental and heritage harms.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-23

178

Louise Nicholas and Suzie Thomas

Non-human rights, non-human victims Although sometimes overlooked in favour of the needs of humans, especially in the context of climate crisis, the needs and rights of the non-human are increasingly considered. In 1975, the Australian philosopher Peter Singer (1975) wrote the book Animal Liberation, in which he expanded the utilitarian idea that the greatest good of the greatest number is the only measure of good or ethical behaviour. Singer argued that there is no reason not to apply this principle to other animals, arguing that the boundary between human and animal is arbitrary. There has been some progress in non-human rights for animals. For example, in the United States, although petitions to grant chimpanzees legal personhood in order to enact habeas corpus (seeking relief from unlawful imprisonment) have been largely unsuccessful, they have found some sympathetic hearings (Andrews et al., 2018). At the end of 2014 in Argentina, an orangutan named Sandra was recognised as having the right to life, liberty and freedom from harm. Therefore, she should not be held in a zoo (Román, 2015). After Cecil the lion was infamously shot dead in Zimbabwe in June 2015 by a dentist from the state of Minnesota in the United States, trophy hunting became a hot topic in the Western world. Cecil had been popular with tourists, owing to his distinctive mane and the fact that he allowed people to get close to him. He resided in Hwange National Park, and was allegedly lured out of the sanctuary. Reportedly there was some 40 hours between frst being shot by a bow and arrow and fnally being killed by a rife. His killer, American tourist Walter Palmer, paid USD$50,000 dollars for the ‘honour’. Following international outcry, a number of responses came into force across the world: • •

• •

France banned the import of lion trophies the United States Fish and Wildlife Service listed African lions under the Endangered Species Act, and United States lawmakers proposed a bill to limit trophy hunting more than 40 airlines, including several major ones from the United States, stopped transporting hunting trophies to the United States in the United Kingdom, ‘Cecil’s Law’ was called for by rock star and animal rights activist Dr Brian May to stop any trophy from hunting to be brought into the United Kingdom (Ares, 2019).

In September 2019, a British Member of Parliament, Zac Goldsmith, announced a ban on importing endangered animal parts from Africa as part of wide-ranging legislation that will also stop the import of exotic furs and rugs. However, that same month the United Kingdom Government stated they were not considering a ban (Ares, 2019). The dentist who killed Cecil received death threats and reportedly hired 24-hour security; police guarded his dental practice and his home; he did not return to work for six weeks; and he lost business and income as a result. In addition, he

The natural and built rural environments as victims

179

faced a large amount of criticism and abuse on social media (Glenza et al., 2015), although in the end as he had paid for a license he was not charged with any crime. Two men in Zimbabwe were prosecuted in relation to the hunt. Theo Bronkhorst, a professional hunter who helped Palmer, was charged with ‘failure to prevent an illegal hunt’. On 11 November 2016, the High Court in the city of Bulawayo threw out the charges against Bronkhorst, agreeing with the defence that it could not have been a crime under the country’s wildlife laws if Palmer had a legal permit to hunt. Honest Ndlovu, whose property is near the park in western Zimbabwe, faced a charge of allowing the lion hunt to occur on his farm without proper authority. However, after posting bail, there did not seem to be any more updates on his case. More broadly, entire ecosystems and non-animal life such as plants can also be considered victims of environmentally damaging and criminal acts, such as corporate crimes and negligence. Even geological features such as rivers (and the lives that depend on them) have been aforded special protection similar to human rights. Colombia, which is home to a swathe of rainforest roughly the size of Germany and England combined, saw deforestation rates in its Amazon region increase by 44 percent from 2015 to 2016. A group of 25 young plaintifs, ranging in age from seven to 26, fled a lawsuit against the Columbian government in January  2018 demanding it protect their right to a healthy environment. In April 2018 the Colombian Amazon was granted legal personhood: “The plaintifs had said the government’s failure to stop the destruction of the Amazon jeopardised their futures and violated their constitutional rights to a healthy environment, life, food and water” (Moloney, 2018). This followed the frst case of its kind of a river gaining legal personhood one year earlier in New Zealand with the example of the Whanganui River, followed by a similar decision in Australia for the Yarra River through the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Act 2017 (O’Bryan, 2017). Forests and woodland, as well as cultural heritage assets, are large targets for criminal activity around the world. The economic value of the plants and nonhuman animals in these settings are high enough to tempt both illicit and legal but harmful activities. The trade in some species is particularly lucrative. Siamese rosewood trees are close to extinction but in high demand for luxury furniture, with a single carved rosewood bed selling for USD$1 million in 2011 (Environmental Investigation Agency, 2014). Between 2000 and 2014, USD$1.2 billion of Siamese rosewood was imported to China, often with dubious or faked documents (Stokes, 2016). Despite the best eforts of rangers, there are multiple routes across the borders of Thailand where the wood can be moved out of the country. Protecting this remote resource is particularly dangerous, with many rangers being killed in shootouts with smugglers since 2000. Even where rangers successfully prevent the wood being moved across borders, the damage is done to the ecosystem, and the wood often ends up being burned in situ as transporting out of the remote sites is too difcult. Technological solutions have been trialled by forestry ofcials, with global positioning system (GPS)

180

Louise Nicholas and Suzie Thomas

trackers embedded in wood to facilitate the tracking of smuggling networks, and motion sensors alerting the authorities to movement around the protected species (Jirenuwat & Roney, 2021). The impact of decades of smuggling has resulted in very few Siamese rosewood trees remaining, and those are often younger trees that are not yet mature enough to reproduce: a fully grown Siamese rosewood tree may be 200 years old. Poachers of these trees are often involved in other illegal cross-border activities, such as human trafcking and slavery. This is an example of self-selection policing where we see that rural ofenders are not necessarily specialists, but rather they are generalists who use their networks to commit multiple ofences. This means the sphere of victimisation is much wider than the direct impact on the woods and forests: illegal logging is often associated with other illegal activities. Deforestation is also driven by legal logging, either for the value of the wood itself, or quite commonly to clear land for other agricultural or development activity such as roads, railways and housing. Cattle ranching is the largest driver of deforestation in every Amazon country, accounting for an estimated 80 percent of current deforestation rates (World Wildlife Fund, n.d.). After the Brazilian government came under international pressure, they temporarily stepped up enforcement of the forest code (requiring Amazonian landowners to maintain 80  percent of their land in forest) and forest monitoring, before this was reversed in recent years by the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro (Escobar, 2019). Government sanctioned destruction of protected woodland is common around the world. In the United Kingdom, there is a new trainline (called HS2) being developed to reduce journey times between major cities by around ten minutes. The associated land use change is resulting in an estimated 108 recognised and ‘protected’ ancient woodlands being at risk of damage and loss. Whilst new planting is happening along the route, this does not mitigate for the loss of natural and cultural heritage, as well as these vital ecosystems. In England, already half of the irreplaceable ancient woodland has been lost since 1930 – natural heritage as well as non-human victims – and many more forests were planted with non-natives to ‘commercialise’ them (Woodland Trust, 2019, p. 6). Victimisation of the local communities, afected by the loss of countryside, historic environment, amenities and in some cases their own homes and gardens, has been carried out to develop a cross-country train that the victims, in many cases, will never use because of cost, need or location of stations. Non-human fora and fauna are also victims in this context. Ancient woodlands have unique communities of animals and plants not found elsewhere, relatively untouched by human development, and accounts for just 2.5  percent of United Kingdom land (Woodland Trust, 2021). Those losing the most from these kinds of developments are rarely those that stand to beneft from a shorter commute and are not in positions of power to contest billion-pound decisions. The boundary between legal and illegal deforestation is not always clear cut. The activity may appear legitimate, but the associated paperwork and permissions are received through corruption. The United Nations Food and Agriculture

The natural and built rural environments as victims

181

Organization has identifed forest crime and corruption as one of the main causes of deforestation (FAO, 2001). Bribery is reported as the most common form of corruption in the forestry sector, and the most likely individuals to be involved in corruption are government ofcials from forestry agencies. Government ofcials from other agencies, law enforcement ofcers and logging company ofcials are also found to be extensively involved (Interpol, 2020). Corruption and bribery of ofcials to establish networks for the illegal movement of timber have also been exploited by criminals to transport and export other illicit goods, such as drugs and frearms. The wider victimisation resulting from deforestation impacts individuals, communities, non-human animals and the environment more generally. The victims are not confned to the local area: rather, they are spread worldwide owing to the implications for global climate change caused by the loss of forest (World Wildlife Fund, 2021): When species lose their forest homes, they are often unable to subsist in the small fragments of forested land left behind. They become more accessible to hunters and poachers, their numbers begin to dwindle and some eventually go extinct. Even localised deforestation can result in extinctions as many unique species exist in small isolated geographic locations in the world.

Indigenous and rural community rights Worldwide, there are fve to ten million Indigenous communities in tropical forest areas, but their numbers are falling as they are driven out of forests by government decree, resettlement or deforestation. Beginning in 1995, the Government of Brazil formalised the rights of several hundred Indigenous communities, whose lands cover more than 40  million hectares in the Amazon region, and provided support for these rights’ enforcement. This has echoed the observations that for many Indigenous communities in Brazil (but also elsewhere), their relationship with the land and also with non-human entities “co-produces” a “biocultural heritage” (Virtanen, 2019). Deforestation, though, has hastened the extinction of some Indigenous peoples. It brings heretofore isolated natives into contact with Westerners, exposing them to diseases they have never before encountered. The global COVID-19 pandemic has been the most recent disease threat to communities coming into contact with non-indigenous people (Amigo, 2020). Disease is not the only thing causing deaths among Indigenous communities. Contamination of food and water supplies by miners carelessly discarding mercury used in refning processes has been a serious problem. In addition, more Indigenous people have become suicidal when they see the changes to their land or after losing protection of their lands in court (Mitten, 1997, p. 550). Many Indigenous peoples have also been murdered. Outsiders seeking access to valuable Indigenous lands will sometimes stop at nothing to gain access. With deforestation, Indigenous peoples lose their natural resources and are

182

Louise Nicholas and Suzie Thomas

forced into contact with the dominant culture, therefore losing their heritage and culture, both tangible and intangible. Efects of deforestation are not confned to the borders of the country within which it occurs. Forest fres set as part of deforestation practices increase particles and smoke being released into the atmosphere and therefore increase pollution in entire regions. Trees and plants reduce pollution because they process the CO2 into oxygen, and therefore it is estimated that 15 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions are the result of deforestation (Carbon Footprint, n.d.). These greenhouse gas emissions contribute to rising temperatures, changes in patterns of weather and water and an increased frequency of extreme weather events. The climate crisis afects everyone, but particularly the most vulnerable in society who are least able to aford protections and are in the most impacted areas. Tackling the climate crisis will take a major change and commitment from all governments. This commitment has hitherto not been forthcoming. Amongst many problems being caused by the climate crisis, such as an increased frequency of extreme weather events and difculties in farming conditions, one of the most pressing concerns is that of rising sea levels. The concern is not equally distributed around the world. Pacifc island states are the most immediately at risk because they are low-lying pieces of land, so a relatively small rise in sea levels has a disproportionate impact on the usability of the land. These are the frst nations which will become completely lost to the ocean. Countries such as the Marshall Islands are at existential risk, with many atolls expected to be uninhabitable by the middle of the twenty-frst century (Greskho, 2018). This is likely to result in a great deal of migration, both internal and international. There are many economic, social, cultural and psychological costs for victims of climate change-related migration. It is highly disruptive to livelihoods, culture and society as people lose networks, their heritage and their homes. Most Pacifc island countries have now established policies, strategies or planning tools to guide national adaptation activities. However, there is far less in relation to forced migration plans in large part because of the political and cultural sensitivities surrounding this step (Campbell & Warrick, 2014). The exploitation of natural mineral resources, for example through mining and quarrying, can also pose a threat to Indigenous communities and their way of life. There is much written about Sámi land rights in Sápmi – the traditional homelands stretching across the northern regions of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia’s Murmansk Oblast. The application of the mining industry in these regions has been described as a form of colonisation (see, for example, Lawrence  & Åhrén, 2016). A study into the diferent laws of the four nations that are intended to protect Indigenous rights in light of mineral extraction found them all to be lacking somewhat (Koivurova et al., 2015). The pressure for more minerals in combination with the efect of climate change in the Arctic region are threats to the ecosystem and Indigenous communities alike. The impact of rising sea levels reaches many coastal areas where communities are unlikely to exist in a matter of decades. There are immediate impacts on people living at these locations. Homes become valueless, trapping people in a choice

The natural and built rural environments as victims

183

between remaining until the sea arrives, or leaving their homes with nothing. Many homes have already fallen into the sea in communities such as Happisburgh in Norfolk, England, and in Audresselles, France, and ostensibly protected heritage buildings are at risk. Often, the communities consider themselves to have been abandoned by the government. Sea defences are expensive, and governments frequently use a cost-beneft analysis to determine where they are most cost efective. Small coastal communities generally do not generate enough ‘worth’ to the economy to qualify for most protections. This leaves them unprotected, and whilst there are sometimes other schemes to which they can apply, few communities have the expertise to successfully do so. Failing to act when there are ways to mitigate the destruction of property, the loss of cultural heritage, even the loss of livelihoods and life leaves governments open to accusations of criminality, regardless of whether the letter of the law is being followed. One state-level response to the climate crisis is to agree to voluntary targets on carbon emissions. Targets can give a false sense of security, with current action focusing on achieving or coming close to those targets: the targets are set at a level that is the bare minimum that needs to be done. A reluctance across governments to set harsher targets is evident, in large part owing to political priorities. Around the world, many governments prioritise individual freedoms and proft-making businesses. This means they actively avoid legislating in a way which increases regulations even when the scientifc evidence is overwhelmingly calling for action, as is the case with the climate crisis. Lobbying, where powerful individuals and organisations push for legislation to refect their concerns, is a big issue in this context, as it is in other issues of environmental and heritage protection.

Rural heritage victims Rural victimisation in terms of the natural and built heritage is concentrated on groups, areas and individuals. The concept of environmental inequality emerged in the context of the 1980s movement for environmental justice, which came about in response to concerns about communities from poor, black and minority ethnic environments being disproportionately afected by environmental issues and excluded from environmental decision-making. Environmental racism is the term used to describe environmental injustice within a racialised context. Generally, environmental racism refers to socially marginalised racial minority communities which are subjected to disproportionate exposure of pollutants, the denial of access to sources of ecological benefts (such as clean air, water and natural resources) or both (Holifeld, 2001). Within an international context, environmental marginalisation may apply to disadvantaged ecological relationships between industrialised nations and the Global South, and is often associated with colonialism, neoliberalism and globalisation. Instances of environmental racism can include exposure to toxic waste, fooding, pollution from heavy industrial or natural resource extraction developments, lack of utilities such as clean water or exclusion from land management and natural resource-related decision making.

184

Louise Nicholas and Suzie Thomas

Internationally, policies that have been described as ‘environmentally racist’ include corporations exporting dirty technologies, dangerous chemicals or waste materials banned by domestic laws to developing countries, with lax environmental policies and safety practices. The United Kingdom and other European countries are failing to stop toxic e-waste such as fat-screen televisions and refrigerators from being smuggled inside used cars and dumped in Nigeria. Around 41,500 tonnes of used electronic items were shipped inside cars, buses and trucks into Lagos from the European Union and the United States in 2016. Later reports suggest that within the European Union, companies have been illegally importing waste from other countries such as Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom which was intended for recycling, as well as toxic waste, which is instead dumped in illegal landflls (Gherasim, 2021). In England (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Afairs, 2011, p. 51), [P]eople in deprived areas are nearly six times less likely than those in afuent ones to describe their area as ‘green’. Those living in deprived areas, minority ethnic communities, elderly people and those with disabilities have less access to green spaces or tend to use them less. Some 82 percent of all carcinogenic chemical emissions were released by factories in the most deprived 20  percent wards in the United Kingdom. Because 70  percent of all people from racialised minorities in the United Kingdom live in the 88 most deprived wards, this exposure to harmful chemicals disproportionately afects these people (Stephens et al., 2001, p. 7). This is a pattern seen elsewhere, for example with the well-documented polluted water supply in Flint, Michigan (see, for example Pulido, 2016, who refers to the pollution as ‘poisoning’ rather than ‘contamination’ so as to highlight the racist and deliberate nature of the action). Built heritage refers to historic buildings that are considered to be heritage. This may include buildings with an ofcial designation such as listed buildings, as well as buildings that have a locally recognised heritage value for example to local communities. In rural settings, built heritage has been the target of diferent crimes, which in turn has caused victimisation to their local communities. This has been recognised by Historic England, who have released guidelines for collecting impact statements for heritage crime incidents (Historic England, 2018). Crimes afecting the built historic environment include arson, architectural theft and unauthorised development work. Motivations for these crimes can be fnancial (for example, seeking and stealing metal to sell on), but can also be driven by ideological motives. In 1992, the Fantoft Stave Church near Bergen, in Norway, was deliberately burnt down as a form of protest by black metal enthusiasts. They apparently viewed the medieval wooden church as an illegitimate Christianisation of a site they believed to have been used for pagan beliefs earlier in time. Despite the church’s subsequent restoration, it has become a site of pilgrimage and signifcance for the history of the black metal genre in Norway (Williams, 2012).

The natural and built rural environments as victims

185

In Finland, another church arson took place in 2006 which was also at least partially motivated by a criticism of Christianity. An eighteen-year-old male, after a night of drinking with two friends, approached Porvoo Cathedral, climbed onto the sacristy using a ladder attached to the cathedral wall, and used paper leafets to set fre to the building’s wooden eaves. Although he and his two companions left the site without calling police or fre services, the blaze was spotted and acted upon quickly, especially as there was a risk of the fre spreading to other parts of Porvoo’s historic old town. As a result of the fre, additional security measures were installed at the cathedral such as removing the ladder and adding CCTV (Wirilander, 2021, pp. 170–176). The perpetrator admitted after arrest that he had previously been reading about the deliberate arsons of Norwegian churches in the 1990s (YLE24, 2006). Built heritage can also become the victim of deliberate destruction during times of confict and political unrest. Smaller portable artefacts and architectural pieces may become more vulnerable to looting, while other features may come to be regarded by invading forces as legitimate ‘spoils of war’. This has happened historically many times, one notable example being the objects from Yuanmingyuan (the Summer Palace in Peking, now Beijing), which found their way into British regimental museums following looting by British and French soldiers during the Second Opium War (1856–60) (Tythacott, 2015). Finally, as with the case of Mostar Bridge in Bosnia, we also know that heritage can be targeted as a means of demoralising the opposition (Stone, 2015).

Conclusion There are similarities between built and natural rural heritage loss for the victims afected. In addition to wellbeing implications, there are economic, cultural and social impacts when environments are damaged, destroyed or stolen. Four implications in particular, stand out. (i) Irreparable damage can occur; for example, by smashing a window during a burglary. If the smashed window is a special kind, such as a stained glass window, there might not be anyone with the skills to repair it (or the specialist skills may be prohibitively expensive to hire), and the materials may not be the same. Deforested lands take a generation to recover and may lose unknown plants and wildlife, leading to increased extinctions as well as wider climate problems. (ii) Cultural heritage can be lost for future generations. This has been a deliberate strategy in confict (Stone, 2015). Other intangible heritage (such as traditional knowledge) can also be lost through environmental heritage crimes, such as Indigenous cultural practices, farming techniques and other traditional land uses. Scholars have recently commented, for example, that once common Indigenous burning practices could actually help curtail the present forest fre problems in Australia (Wickham et al., 2021).

186

Louise Nicholas and Suzie Thomas

(iii) Victims are widespread, and the impact can go beyond the immediate vicinity. This includes climate change, the loss of scientifc knowledge (particularly the case when items are stolen from an under-researched site, or from uncatalogued collections) and even loss of medical knowledge. (iv) Heritage features in some places are under-researched and also hard to track (for restitution or restoration). The true extent of loss and damage may take longer to establish or never be fully known due to the rural element. The range and scale of crimes, from small thefts to corporate crimes and even statesanctioned harms, can have serious implications that severely afect local communities, especially Indigenous communities. Furthermore, non-human entities, such as non-human animals as well as geological features and their surrounding ecosystems, are unwitting and unwilling victims. The efects go beyond the immediate communities, however, with the threat of loss of knowledge as well as the climate crisis afecting both humans and non-human animals and environments at the global level.

References Amigo, I. (2020). Indigenous communities in Brazil fear pandemic’s impact. Science, 368(6489), 352. Andrews, K., Comstock, G., Crozier, G. K. D., Donaldson, S., Fenton, A., John, T. M., Johnson, L. S. M., Jones, R. C., Kymlicka, W., Meynell, L., & Nobis, N. (2018). Chimpanzee rights: The philosophers’ brief. London: Routledge. Ares, E. (2019). Trophy hunting. Commons Library Briefng. Retrieved from https://researchbriefngs.fles.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7908/CBP-7908.pdf Campbell, J., & Warrick, O. (2014). Climate change and migration issues in the Pacifc. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacifc. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/dyn/migpractice/docs/261/Pacifc.pdf Carbon Footprint. (n.d.). Deforestation. Retrieved from https://www.carbonfootprint.com/ deforestation.html Department for Environment, Food and Rural Afairs. (2011). The natural choice: Securing the value of nature. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fle/228842/8082.pdf Environmental Investigation Agency. (2014). Routes of extinction: The corruption and violence destroying Siamese rosewood in the Mekong. Retrieved from https://eia-international.org/ wp-content/uploads/Routes-of-Extinction-FINAL-lo-res.pdf Escobar, H. (2019). Amazon fres clearly linked to deforestation, scientists say. Science, 365(6456), 853. Gherasim, C. (2021). After China ban, Romania hit by illegal waste imports. EU Observer. Retrieved from https://euobserver.com/news/151622 Glenza, J., Kassam, A.,  & Smith, D. (2015). US dentist accused of killing Cecil the lion ‘upset’ as hunter becomes hunted. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian. com/world/2015/jul/28/walter-palmer-dentist-accused-killing-cecil-lion-upsethunter-zimbabwe Greskho, M. (2018). Within decades, foods may render many islands uninhabitable. National Geographic. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/ marshall-islands-climate-change-foods-waves-environment-science-spd

The natural and built rural environments as victims

187

Historic England. (2018). Heritage crime impact statements. Retrieved from https://historic england.org.uk/images-books/publications/heritage-crime-impact-statements/heag190heritage-crime-impact-statements/ Holifeld, R. (2001). Defning Environmental Justice and Environmental Racism. Urban Geography, 22(1), 78–90. Interpol. (2020). Forestry crime: Targeting the most lucrative of environmental crimes. Retrieved from https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2020/Forestry-crime-targetingthe-most-lucrative-of-environmental-crimes Jirenuwat, R., & Roney, T. (2021). The guardians of Siamese rosewood. China Dialogue. Retrieved from https://chinadialogue.net/en/nature/the-guardians-of-siamese-rosewood/ Koivurova, T., Masloboev, V., Hossain, K., Nygaard, V., Petrétei, A.,  & Vinogradova, S. (2015). Legal protection of Sami traditional livelihoods from the adverse impacts of mining: A comparison of the level of protection enjoyed by Sami in their four home states. Arctic Review, 6(1), 11–51. Lawrence, R., & Åhrén, M. (2016). Mining as colonisation: The need for restorative justice and restitution of traditional Sami lands. In L. Head, K. Saltzman, G. Setten, & M. Stenseke (Eds.), Nature, temporality and environmental management (pp. 149–166). London: Routledge. Mitten, L. (1997). The human cost of deforestation. Peace Review, 9(4), 549–553. Moloney, A. (2018). The Colombian Amazon now has the same legal rights as you. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/ colombias-top-court-orders-government-to-protect-amazon-forest-in-landmark-case/ O’Bryan, K. (2017). Giving a voice to the river and the role of Indigenous people: The Whanganui River settlement and river management in Victoria. Australian Indigenous Law Review, 20, 48–77. Pulido, L. (2016). Flint, environmental racism, and racial capitalism. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 27(3), 1–16. Román, V. (2015). Argentina grants an orangutan human-like rights. Scientifc American. Retrieved from http://www.scientifcamerican.com/article/argentina-grants-an-orangutanhuman-like-rights/ Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York: Harper Collins. Steiner, A. (n.d.). Putting a stop to global environmental crime has become an imperative. UN Chronicle. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/puttingstop-global-environmental-crime-has-become-imperative Stephens, C., Bullock, S.,  & Scott, A. (2001). Environmental justice. Rights and means to a healthy environment for all. ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme, Special Briefng No.7. Brighton: University of Sussex. Stokes, D. (2016). Thailand’s forest rangers step up training in violent ‘blood wood’ war. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/05/ thailands-forest-rangers-step-up-training-in-violent-blood-wood-war Stone, P. G. (2015). The challenge of protecting heritage in times of armed confict. Museum International, 67(1–4), 40–54. Tythacott, L. (2015). Trophies of war: Representing ‘Summer Palace’ loot in military museums in the UK. Museum and Society, 13(4), 469–488. Virtanen, P. K. (2019). Ancestors’ times and protection of Amazonian Indigenous biocultural heritage. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 15(4), 330–339. Wickham, S., Trant, A., Davis, E., & Hofman, K. (2021). How Indigenous burning practices can help curb the biodiversity crisis. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation. com/how-indigenous-burning-practices-can-help-curb-the-biodiversity-crisis-165422

188

Louise Nicholas and Suzie Thomas

Williams, T. J. T. (2012). A blaze in the northern sky: Black metal and crimes against culture. Public Archaeology, 11(2), 59–72. Wirilander, H. (2021). The preservation of cultural heritage from emergency planning through to heritage recovery processes. Doctoral dissertation. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Woodland Trust. (2019). Planning for ancient woodland. Planners’ manual for ancient woodland and veteran trees. Retrieved from https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/media/3731/plannersmanual-for-ancient-woodland.pdf Woodland Trust. (2021). Ancient woodland. Retrieved from https://www.woodlandtrust.org. uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/habitats/ancient-woodland/ World Wildlife Fund. (2021). Deforestation and forest degradation. Retrieved from https:// www.worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation-and-forest-degradation World Wildlife Fund. (n.d.). Unsustainable cattle ranching. Retrieved from https://wwf. panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/amazon/amazon_threats/ unsustainable_cattle_ranching YLE24. (2006). Prime suspect in Porvoo Arson case admits to setting fre. Retrieved from https:// yle.f/news/3-5750645

CASE STUDY Rio Tinto destruction of Juukan Gorge cave system, Western Australia

On 24 May  2020, the multinational mining company Rio Tinto blew up the millennia old Aboriginal Juukan Gorge cave system in the land of the Indigenous Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people in the Pilbara region in Western Australia. These cave shelters were a rare location that had evidence of continuous human habitation since the last Ice Age, some 46,000 years in total. Furthermore, the site held important cultural signifcance for the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people. Rio Tinto exploded the ancient caves as part of an iron ore exploration project (BBC, 2020a), despite that they would have had alternative options to destroying the ancient shelters. This destruction occurred in spite of Rio Tinto having commissioned archaeological reports that “had uncovered some 7,000-odd artefacts, including a four thousand year old human hair belt that linked the site directly to the ancestors of the current Traditional Owners” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2020, p. vi). The report stated the company had alternatives for mining the area that would have preserved the shelters (Commonwealth of Australia, 2020). Nonetheless, the explosion was carried out with the permission of the government of Western Australia, obtained under s.18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) (Preston & Craig, 2021). The laws in place that were intended to protect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage were not ft for purpose, both locally and nationally, and there have since been calls to revise them as a matter of urgency (Preston & Craig, 2021). The impact of Rio Tinto’s action is particularly signifcant because the ancient shelters were not only archaeologically signifcant and important as a proof of the long history of Indigenous people’s inhabitation of Australia, but also important as part of the Traditional Owners’ living heritage and culture. The caves are a spiritual place which are a recognised resting place for spirits of the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura peoples (Hayes, cited in Commonwealth of Australia, 2020, p. 2).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-24

190

Louise Nicholas and Suzie Thomas

Senior ofcials within Rio Tinto have since resigned, with bonuses cut for executives (BBC, 2020b). The company has been ordered to rebuild the site, and has pledged to remedy its relationship with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Nonetheless, much of the original site at Juukan Gorge is permanently lost. There will, however, be a keeping place for the recovered artefacts, which will be under the control of the Traditional Owners. Furthermore, an interim and then fnal report following an extensive inquiry recommended, among other things, that Rio Tinto “[u]ndertake an independent review of all its agreements with Traditional Owners to ensure they refect best practice standards” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2021, p. 289). A report from the Joint Standing Committee of Northern Australia noted that: “Rio Tinto’s role in this tragedy is inexcusable. Rio knew the value of what they were destroying but blew it up anyway” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2020, p. vi). The destruction of these sacred caves in the Pilbara region is an important case study because of the wider ramifcations for the protection of Indigenous heritage across Australia. Also, because the caves were legally destroyed, the case reinforces the point that crimes and harms are often not the same, particularly in environmental and heritage contexts. s.17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act (WA) 1972 ofers protection – that destruction, damage or alterations to an Aboriginal site is a criminal ofence. s.18 says – unless you get permission. The Act is under revision at the time of writing, but this is a slow process and in the interim, destruction is still able to continue under this clause. Although this case will ultimately lead to stronger legislation, it is illustrative of a more systemic problem within Australia and many other countries with a colonial legacy; that the rights and culture of Indigenous communities has historically been overlooked, silenced and destroyed: “For more than two centuries, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia were denied their existence, alienated and dispossessed from their lands and forcibly relocated to missions and reserves” (Wensing, 2020, p. 242). The global outcry at the destruction of the Juukan Gorge cave shelter system, and then the legislative changes in Australia that may come about as a result, could ultimately contribute to ongoing eforts to decolonise heritage management and preservation in order to recognise the needs and cultural practices of Indigenous groups, while at the same time recognising the long histories of oppression and acts of both cultural and actual genocide. This is a long-term process that needs to take place at a global level. Measures such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, although with its critics and shortcomings (Engle, 2011), are also helping contribute to change that may lead to greater protection of the natural and built rural environments as part and parcel of protecting Indigenous rights in general. As others have noted (for example Wensing, 2020), the United Nations Declarations and other measures need to have an even stronger infuence on national and regional legislative tools in order to prevent further avoidable acts of cultural and environmental destruction.

The natural and built rural environments as victims

191

References British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). (2020a). Rio Tinto ordered to rebuild ancient Aboriginal caves. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-55250137 British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). (2020b). Rio Tinto bosses lose bonuses over Aboriginal cave destruction. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53885695 Commonwealth of Australia. (2020). Never again: Inquiry into the destruction of 46,000 year old caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia – Interim Report. Retrieved from https://apo.org.au/sites/default/fles/resource-fles/2020-12/apo-nid310049.pdf Commonwealth of Australia. (2021). A way forward: Final report into the destruction of Indigenous heritage sites at Juukan Gorge. Retrieved from https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/ download/committees/reportjnt/024757/toc_pdf/AWayForward.pdf;fleType=application% 2Fpdf Engle, K. (2011). On fragile architecture: The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the context of human rights. European Journal of International Law, 22(1), 141–163. Preston, J., & Craig, D. (2021). In plain sight – from Juukan caves destruction to just development. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 40, 361–381. https://doi.org/10.108 0/02646811.2021.1984036 Wensing, E. (2020). The destruction of Juukan Gorge: Lessons for planners and local governments. Australian Planner, 56(4), 241–248.

PART III

Responses

14 LEGAL SUPPORTS AND SERVICES FOR RURAL VICTIMS Hannah Haksgaard

Lawyers and legal representation are vitally important for victims of crime, and this is particularly so in rural areas that often lack other resources for victims. While acknowledging that various victim services can positively impact victims, this chapter argues it is the availability of local lawyers that often matters most for rural victims. Even when victims do receive assistance through non-lawyer victim service providers, victims still report that their civil legal needs are not met (Daigle et al., 2019). Local lawyers can fll this ‘access to justice’ gap (see Donnermeyer in Chapter 2 of this volume) by representing victims in civil, criminal and administrative cases, and can even help in the prevention of some crimes. By their very presence in rural communities, lawyers who do not represent victims directly can improve the functioning of rural legal systems, thereby benefting victims of crime who rely on rural court systems. In the United States, despite the importance of having local lawyers in rural communities, rural areas sufer serious lawyer shortages. American lawyers are concentrated most heavily in the country’s largest cities, leaving large swaths of the country with insufcient – or no – local legal representatives. Fewer than seven percent of America’s lawyers work in rural areas, even though nearly 20 percent of the population live in rural places (Deason Center, 2020). This rural population is racially and culturally diverse (Beety, 2019), and more rural residents have to navigate civil matters without an attorney (or solicitor, as termed in other international settings) (Statz, 2021). A  growing literature demonstrates a wide-spread lawyer shortage in many rural areas. Pruitt and colleagues (2018) documented the United States rural lawyer shortage and profled its impacts in six American states, and the American Bar Association has mapped the location of lawyers across the United States, showing a consistent rural lawyer shortage (ABA, 2020). The rural lawyer shortage means there are few or no lawyers available to take on victims as clients and that “people

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-26

196

Hannah Haksgaard

who live in rural areas may have a very difcult time fnding a lawyer in a time of crisis” (Kornblum & Pollack, 2019). Legal representation and advocacy are key pillars of criminal and civil legal systems, and lack of access to professional legal services can create signifcant imbalance, disadvantage and issues of equity. While adopting an international approach, the chapter draws upon research in the United States on access to legal representation in light of a shortage of rural lawyers. It considers how the rural lawyer shortage creates opportunities for victimisation in rural communities and how it negatively impacts the criminal legal system, including the ability to hire and retain appropriately compensated judges, prosecutors, defence counsel and victim’s counsel. Importantly, this chapter assesses how the rural lawyer shortage has a negative impact on victims even outside of the criminal legal process, because victims have difculty fnding lawyers to represent them in related civil issues. It concludes with a discussion of potential solutions to the rural lawyer shortage with an emphasis on how programs may have a direct positive impact on rural victims. A case study highlights the Rural Attorney Recruitment Program in the state of South Dakota in the United States, demonstrating how new rural attorneys participating in the program provide critical legal services that beneft victims.

Lawyer involvement in preventing victimhood Before victimisation even occurs, lawyers can prevent some crimes, perhaps most notably fnancial and elder abuse; moreover, the existence of lawyers as preventers of crime may be particularly salient in rural areas. As Oltman (2016) has highlighted, the risk of fnancial abuse and elder abuse is particularly high for rural owners of farmland. Farmers in the United States are aging, wealthy and isolated, thus setting up the potential for high rates of elder abuse. Oltman (2016) argues that the best way to prevent elder abuse is to provide advanced fnancial and estate planning for farmers; yet, in rural areas, there are insufcient lawyers to do this important legal work. Indeed, lawyers can help clients create detailed transition plans that make future abuse substantially more difcult for perpetrators. Continuing to have local rural attorneys involved in the business aspects of farm families is important even once advance planning is done. If lawyers in local communities have regular contact with clients and supervise continuing transactions, they can notice declining mental capacities and can watch for potential abuse (Oltman, 2016). Lawyers can help to prevent victimisation in other ways too. Rural residents can be victims of employment discrimination, labour law violations, poor or fraudulent business practices, poor or fraudulent real estate transactions or rental agreements and other types of non-compliance. Rural lawyers can help prevent this type of victimisation by helping new business owners properly set up their businesses, by providing professional guidance with compliance matters and by ensuring that governmental entities and businesses are complying with relevant controlling law. Having attorneys available to draft contracts prevents victimisation in areas ripe for

Legal supports and services for rural victims

197

abuse like employment law and real estate transactions. Simply put, the lack of lawyers in rural communities creates opportunities for abusive practices in many areas and makes those at risk of victimisation “further vulnerable” (Statz & Termuhlen, 2020, p. 1519).

The rural lawyer shortage and the criminal legal system A shortage of rural lawyers and a lack of resources in rural communities have a negative impact on how local criminal legal systems function, which in turn negatively impacts rural victims (Beety, 2019). Although this section addresses lawyers serving as victims’ counsel, it argues that more lawyers are needed to improve the general function of rural criminal legal systems. Victims beneft from well-functioning criminal legal systems, which require sufcient lawyers to serve not only as victims’ lawyers, but also as judges, prosecutors and defence counsel. Rural communities “struggle to recruit and retain criminal lawyers who can serve as judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and private defense counsel” (Deason Center, 2020, p. 4). This leaves rural communities without experienced criminal lawyers to take specialised or complex cases. Much of the United States’ legal system is organised at the county level, and in rural counties without local lawyers, counties must pay prosecutors and defence counsel to travel in order to have a functional criminal legal system (Pruitt et al., 2018). Many rural counties are not large enough – or wealthy enough – to have a full-time prosecutor or public defender. Even when prosecutors and defence counsel do live in the communities they serve, their positions are frequently part-time, and they lack many of the resources common in urban criminal legal systems (Deason Center, 2020). Rural counties rarely have full-time salaried public defenders. Instead, counties will often hire defenders by contract (Romero, 2022) or appoint them at an hourly rate (Haksgaard, 2020). Because of insufcient local attorneys, rural counties frequently see long wait-times before being able to appoint defence counsel, thereby slowing down the entire criminal legal system (Haksgaard, 2020). For victims of crime, a delay in criminal proceedings can be alienating (Otano, 2020) and mentally taxing (Cassell, 1999). Rural prosecutors also face a number of issues tied to the rural lawyer shortage that negatively impact the progress of criminal cases. Romero (2017, p. 196) shows how the part-time prosecutor contracts frequently used in rural counties are damaging for the criminal legal system because there may be “greater risks of (i) self-dealing, (ii) facing ethical dilemmas when having to divide their loyalties amongst multiple principals and (iii) unaccountability”. Many of these parttime prosecutors travel between counties, increasing travel burdens and decreasing knowledge of the local community, making it more difcult to achieve justice, as prosecutors are not familiar with the unique circumstances of the rural communities they serve. Oltman (2016) argues that the lack of rural lawyers and lack of resources for prosecutors means that complex cases – such as elder abuse in farming communities – are not prosecuted. Additionally, part-time prosecutors in rural

198

Hannah Haksgaard

communities are more likely to have conficts of interest that impact their abilities to carry out prosecutorial duties. A  prosecutor in a rural community may have previously represented a defendant or victim in their general practice, putting the criminal legal system at risk (Curriden, 1994). Rural victims may therefore fnd the quality of prosecution lacking. It is not just rural lawyers who sufer from a lack of resources. The Deason Center (2020, p. 12) identifes challenges for criminal judges in rural areas, including that rural judges “may lack access to resources, training, and support. Often, they deliver justice without the beneft of the administrative and legal infrastructure that other judges take for granted”. Just like the criminal lawyers that practice before them, judges in rural communities may “work part-time, are paid very little, and have limited institutional support for resolving complex legal issues” (Deason Center, 2020, p. 12). Part-time rural judges sometimes maintain private practices, risking “actual or perceived confict of interest problems” (Edmondson, 1996, p. 97). Given the relative intimacy of some rural communities, rural judges may also have personal relationships with criminal defendants and their victims, creating “potential ethical pitfalls” (Deason Center, 2020, p. 12). Not all rural judges are even law trained. Several United States jurisdictions allow judges without law degrees, a practice that is more common in rural areas that do not have enough law-trained judges to staf courts (Deason Center, 2020). The consequent impact on rural victims is that judges may lack experience or face conficts of interest, potentially threatening the validity of prosecution of perpetrators. During a criminal case, victims beneft from having their own personal counsel (Garvin & Beloof, 2015), yet attorneys are difcult to hire in rural areas because there are not enough available. Criminal legal systems difer in how a victim’s lawyer can participate in a criminal proceeding. The United States has an adversary system where parties have to assert their own interests before the court. Although advocates have long called for more ofcial victim participation in the criminal legal system in the United States (Cardenas, 1986), in the American system, victims – who are not parties to the criminal case – have no right to assert their own interests in a criminal trial. In the adversarial trial, the victim must rely on the prosecutor to represent their interests, given that the victim has limited opportunity to actively participate in the trial process. Although prosecutors frequently share the same goals as victims, that is not always the case (Behre, 2017). American prosecutors do not treat victims like their clients and frequently keep a certain distance (Caplow, 1998), which can impact the degree to which the victims’ interests are represented. Nor should prosecutors treat victims like their own clients because prosecutors are tasked with seeking justice and have an obligation to protect criminal defendants. This system – where victims are neither parties to the case nor represented by prosecutors – means victims are often unable to successfully enforce their rights (Yin, 2021). In response to this system, the victims’ rights movement has advocated for increased victims’ rights and participation in the criminal legal system. In the United States, every state and the federal government has passed victims’ rights legislation

Legal supports and services for rural victims

199

(Blondel, 2008). American jurisdictions provide a combination of rights, such as rights to notifcation, consultation, compensation, restitution, protection and a speedy trial (Davis & Mulford, 2008). Starting in the 1980s, many other countries adopted victims’ rights policies (Braun, 2019). For example, the European Union has a directive setting minimum standards for victims’ rights; and almost all European Union members states – save for Ireland – provide free legal aid attorneys to at least some victims (Elbers et al., 2020). In the United States, outside of a limited right in the military (Garvin & Beloof, 2015), no law guarantees legal counsel to victims, and very few government resources are allocated to provide counsel to victims. Some limited government programs have attempted to provide attorneys to victims, such as funding for legal clinics that provide free services (Davis & Mulford, 2008). Of course, individual victims may engage lawyers (if there are any available), but rural victims – especially poor rural victims – will struggle to obtain a lawyer. Yet, having a lawyer provides many benefts. For instance, victims’ lawyers can explain legal processes (Kerrick, 2014; Cofey, 2006) and potentially enforce statutory rights (Garvin  & Beloof, 2015) such as the right to be present in court proceedings and the right to notice regarding proceedings and plea deals under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (Yin, 2021). If a prosecutor is failing to meet statutory requirements, a victim will be more successful in enforcing statutory rights if represented by victims’ counsel (Gillis & Beloof, 2002). Victims’ attorneys might have a special role when crime occurs on rural land belonging to Indigenous Americans. Complicated jurisdictional rules mean sometimes tribal governments cannot prosecute a crime, yet non-indigenous prosecutors may overlook the harm caused to Indigenous victims; victims’ attorneys can advocate on behalf of Indigenous victims to encourage state or federal investigators or prosecutors to look at the case (McCammon, 2021). Following the conclusion of criminal proceedings, many victims still have legal needs. Despite those needs, Caplow (1998, p. 12) argues that for “most crime victims, the criminal process will be their only source of vindication” because many perpetrators are unable to pay monetary damages and victims cannot always hire civil lawyers. It is therefore important to ensure sufcient legal representation in both the criminal and civil legal systems.

Lawyers assisting victims outside of the criminal legal system While participation in the criminal legal system is important for many victims, the protection of victims is not the goal of the criminal legal system; rather, it is focused on protecting the public (Behre, 2017). Kerrick (2014, p. 38) argues that the “civil legal system is better suited to meet the immediate and personal legal needs of victims”. Because legal services improve victims’ outcomes (Daigle et al., 2019), having more rural lawyers available to take civil cases on behalf of victims is critically important to protecting victims’ rights. Despite the civil legal needs of

200

Hannah Haksgaard

victims being diverse, most rural practitioners will be able to provide the types of legal counsel needed. The issue is not the qualifcations of rural lawyers to provide these services; it is a lack of available rural lawyers. Lawyers can help victims in a number of ways outside of the criminal case by obtaining various services and benefts. In the United States as well as in other jurisdictions, lawyers can assist victims in pursuing two common types of legal claims: personal injury lawsuits against perpetrators and statutory civil rights actions. Generally, these civil claims are made after the criminal case has concluded, but this ordering is not universal. For example, in France, a victim has a right to assert any civil claims during the criminal trial and to free representation by a legal aid attorney (Young & Stein, 2004). Some civil needs – such as obtaining a protective order – will occur before any criminal process. Immediately after a crime has occurred, some victims – especially victims of domestic violence – will seek a civil protective order. Having a lawyer assist domestic violence victims is important. Lawyers can brief victims on the law, including what relief is available and what a court is likely to do (Kerrick, 2014). In cases of domestic violence, a victim represented by a lawyer will have an easier time receiving a restraining order and avoiding a mutual restraining order (Boka, 2004). In reference to victims of domestic violence, Fahnestock (1992, p. 12) noted that “[t]he character of rural communities makes it difcult for victims to use the courts and for the judiciary to provide protection”. While the police and judicial response to domestic violence has changed drastically since Fahnestock’s 1992 observation, it remains true that rural victims of domestic violence struggle to achieve protection through the courts (Pruitt, 2008). Lawyers can help overcome the barriers to justice faced by these victims. Specialised prosecutorial units capable of responding to the complexities of domestic and intimate partner victimisation may be benefcial. However, there are unique challenges associated with establishing specialised services in rural areas, primarily the lack of funding and personnel (Romero et al., 2022). Children in rural communities are not immune from violence in the home. Indeed, rates of maltreatment may actually be higher in non-urban settings. Because of the higher rates of maltreatment and because there are fewer attorneys available to share the caseload, rural attorneys are more likely to represent child victims (Getto  & Pollack, 2015). Those children deserve their own counsel, and Getto and Pollack (2015) note that in rural communities with few lawyers, it is tempting to waive attorney conficts, for example by having one attorney represent both a parent and a child. These conficts should not be waived because the interests of a child victim are not always the same as the related adult. For intra-familial crimes, a victim may need a lawyer to obtain a divorce and custody of children (Kerrick, 2014) or enforce child support obligations (Boka, 2004). However, it can be difcult for victims to retain lawyers, even if they have the fnancial ability to do so. If only one local attorney handles family law matters, the frst spouse to contact the local lawyer secures their representation, or at least prevents their spouse from hiring that lawyer, meaning the other spouse must travel

Legal supports and services for rural victims

201

some distance to access a diferent attorney located elsewhere (Kornblum & Pollack, 2019). The same is true for low-income residents who want to use a legal aid provider when the rural area has only one provider (Kornblum & Pollack, 2019). Even in rural communities with enough lawyers to represent both spouses, one scheming spouse can ‘confict out’ all of the local attorneys by consulting with each of them (Kornblum & Pollack, 2019). Additional conficts are more common in rural communities, such as when the local attorney has previously engaged in business with the other spouse (Kornblum & Pollack, 2019). Because victims of domestic violence frequently have limited ability to travel (Pruitt, 2008), having local attorneys available to serve victims of domestic violence is even more important in rural areas. After a crime has occurred, victims may wish to pursue tort action against the perpetrator or against a school, employer or landlord. Lawyers can help with all of these potential lawsuits. For example, victims of labour law violations beneft from having an attorney pursue such matters. In rural areas, many agricultural workers might be immigrants, further complicating the ability to report labour law violations. Attorneys can help navigate and advocate for rural immigrant victims (Pruitt & Williams, 2018). If a crime does occur in the workplace, a lawyer can advise a victim about whether the employer is potentially violating anti-discrimination or other employment laws (Kerrick, 2014). Even if the crime is unconnected to work, victims may struggle to meet work demands, and lawyers can advocate for victims to receive accommodations at their workplaces (Kerrick, 2014). For victims attending school, a lawyer can negotiate accommodations such as “adding or dropping classes; taking a leave of absence without losing credits, tuition, or fnancial aid; modifying class or exam schedules; or issuing a school-based stay away order” (Kerrick, 2014, p. 40). For college students who are victims of campus sexual assault, counsel can be particularly important as victims navigate school and court processes (Behre, 2017). Having an attorney during the college procedures can help victims assert their rights immediately rather than facing revictimisation by failed investigations and adjudications (Behre, 2017). Later, those victims of college sexual assault may need an attorney to sue the school (Behre, 2017). Lawyers can help in many other ways as well. Some victims need to change their housing situation, and attorneys can interpret leases and negotiate with landlords (Kerrick, 2014). Other victims may fall behind on mortgage payments, and lawyers can explain and negotiate foreclosure alternatives or represent homeowners going through foreclosure. Lawyers are also able to counsel victims on fnancial credit issues (Daigle et  al., 2019). Many victims do not utilise victim services (Logan et  al., 2004), but lawyers can help victims navigate how to qualify for welfare benefts (Boka, 2004) or benefts designed for crime victims (Kerrick, 2014). Lawyers can assist victims in obtaining physical and mental health resources, including dealing with insurance companies who deny coverage (Logan et al., 2004; Statz & Termuhlen, 2020). These services are particularly important in rural areas that do not have other victim advocates to connect victims with available resources.

202

Hannah Haksgaard

It is easy to argue that victims beneft from access to lawyers. The problem is that there simply are not enough lawyers in rural communities to serve all of the victims and their legal needs. The remainder of this chapter explores ways in which rural legal services can be increased in order to provide adequate representation to rural victims.

Potential solutions Rural victims of crime need lawyers to pursue their legal rights. While some international jurisdictions have guaranteed that certain crime victims have their own appointed lawyer, the United States has not. Accordingly, victims of crime in the United States have three options: (i) hire and pay an attorney out of pocket; (ii) use government-funded legal aid attorneys if the victim qualifes; or (iii) fnd an attorney willing to provide pro bono service. This section discusses these options, arguing that placing more attorneys in rural areas is essential. Some attorneys provide pro bono services to victims of crime. Daigle and colleagues (2019) argue that pro bono representation is the best solution in the United States because many victims cannot aford to pay a lawyer, but also do not meet the requirements for legal aid services. Gillis and Beloof (2002) go even further and propose that courts should force attorneys into uncompensated service for victims by appointment. Gillis and Beloof (2002, p. 700) also observe that the National Crime Victim Institute in the United States has had success in working on developing pro bono programs with large law frms, but large law frms are urban and therefore not local to the rural victims in need of representation. Relying on physically distant pro bono attorneys is not a tenable solution. It is true that some rural residents are able to access lawyers remotely via telephone or the internet, and other rural residents can travel to see lawyers. Yet, technology and travel cannot be seen as a panacea for providing legal services to victims. Many rural areas have high rates of poverty, and travelling to a lawyer is particularly difcult for the rural poor (Runge, 2014; Laird, 2014). Rural areas tend to also lack reliable or afordable internet infrastructure (Rinehart, 2021), and poor rural victims might also have limited access to computer hardware (Asher et  al., 2017). As Pruitt and Showman (2014, pp.  485–486) explain, “[p]hysical space itself is often a literal roadblock to gaining access to all sorts of services . . . includ[ing] those provided by lawyers”. Not only would relying on urban attorneys require untenable travel or largely unavailable technology, but non-local attorneys may also have a difcult time being successful in rural courts because of unwritten local norms (Deason Center, 2020; Edmondson, 1996). The suggestion by Gillis and Beloof (2002) to require attorneys to take forced, unpaid court-ordered appointments is a poor idea anywhere, but especially in rural areas with few lawyers. Even a less draconian measure encouraging voluntary pro bono legal services will not work in rural areas. There simply are not enough rural attorneys to serve the needs of all victims (Asher et al., 2017). Even if there are rural lawyers who would like to represent victims, those lawyers may already be serving

Legal supports and services for rural victims

203

as a part-time prosecutor, criminal defence attorney or judge, conficting them out of representing victims. In rural areas, “conficts of interest are both frequent and difcult to solve” (Deason Center, 2020, p. 5). However, when there are more attorneys in a rural community, the conficts lessen. The best solution is to increase the number of attorneys practicing in rural communities. Having more local attorneys means that more rural residents – including victims – will be able to have local counsel. Spreading around the local representation to more attorneys will reduce conficts and reduce travel and communication issues for lawyers and clients alike. While attorneys bring many benefts to rural communities, new law school graduates have been hesitant to begin practicing in rural areas because of economic concerns, lack of access to city amenities and the need to fnd jobs for spouses (Pruitt et al., 2015). Even programs specifcally aimed at recruiting new lawyers to rural areas have failed – in Wisconsin, a program that encourages networking in rural areas is not proving successful in convincing law students to enter rural practice because students prefer to practice in urban areas (Kornblum & Pollack, 2019). Beginning in the 2010s, several United States jurisdictions instituted programs to recruit new attorneys to rural areas. The case study which accompanies this chapter focuses on the successful program in South Dakota which pays attorneys approximately USD$13,000 a year to practice in rural communities (Pruitt et al., 2018). The neighbouring state of North Dakota approved a similar stipend program in 2021, which began in 2022 (State of North Dakota Courts, 2022). Another stipend program was trialled in the neighbouring state of Iowa but only provided a stipend for fve months; it proved inefective at retaining participants once the stipend ended (Davis, 2020). Other states have developed diferent programs, including job fairs, rural summer internships for law students, and incubators for new rural attorneys (Pruitt et al., 2015, 2018). While there are programs specifcally targeted at defence attorneys and prosecutors (Deason Center, 2020), there are no programs aimed at bringing victims’ attorneys to rural areas. While the case study shows that general incentive programs do help rural victims, there are also other ways to more directly recruit lawyers to serve rural victims. Legal aid organisations are concentrated in American cities and spend more dollars per person in urban compared to rural areas (Pruitt et al., 2018). Legal aid organisations could expand into rural areas, creating a fairer distribution of legal aid resources. If there were legal aid ofces in rural areas with staf attorneys present, many more low-income victims could consult a lawyer. National organisations aimed at helping victims could similarly place attorneys in rural areas. To the extent those organisations provide clinics, clinic outposts should be placed in rural areas. Without the United States federal government paying for legal services for victims, funding is difcult, and hiring new attorneys for victims’ rights work is fnancially difcult. One reason recruiting rural attorneys is difcult is the fear of not having a stable income, especially considering the high student loan debt frequently carried by new law school graduates (Pruitt et  al., 2015). Rural attorneys beneft

204

Hannah Haksgaard

from guaranteed pay from entities, one reason that so many rural attorneys serve as part-time prosecutors or frequently take court-appointed cases. If national victims’ organisations ofered to pay attorneys’ fees in victims’ rights cases, local rural attorneys would be more able to take on those cases. Similarly, if attorneys were guaranteed attorneys’ fees for representing victims who prevailed in showing violations of victims’ rights, more lawyers may be willing to take such cases (Yin, 2021). Such guaranteed income might also help rural communities recruit new lawyers.

Conclusion While lawyers do not have a monopoly on helping rural victims, they are an essential element to ensuring fair outcomes for victims of crime. The rural lawyer shortage has placed rural residents at increased risk of crime and prevents an optimal operation of the criminal legal system. While this chapter argues in favour of increasing the total number of rural attorneys, because attorneys are critical for victims, it does not denigrate other services provided for victims. Lawyers will not always be available locally to help, and other services can fll that gap. For example, Benson (2016) persuasively argues that librarians can play an integral role in assisting victims in rural communities. Having additional resources for rural victims is a good thing but will not replace the value of available legal counsel. Rather than relax the rules for unauthorised legal practice to serve rural victims (Benson, 2016), it is better to ensure the availability of lawyers to serve those victims. In fact, as much of this book has demonstrated, other resources for victims are scarce in rural areas. Accordingly, providing counsel for victims is particularly necessary in rural areas where there is a lack of other available resources (Boka, 2004).

References American Bar Association (ABA). (2020). ABA profle of the legal profession 2020. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/news/2020/07/ potlp2020.pdf Asher, J. D., Cuesta, J., & Craig, P. (2017). The challenges of serving rural Colorado. Colorado Lawyer, 16–19. Beety, V. E. (2019). Prosecuting opioid use, punishing rurality. Ohio State Law Journal, 80(4), 741–764. Behre, K. A. (2017). Ensuring choice and voice for campus sexual assault victims: Call for victims’ attorneys. Drake Law Review, 65(2), 293–362. Benson, S. R. (2016). Assisting rural domestic violence victims: The local librarian’s role. Law Library Journal, 108(2), 237–250. Blondel, E. C. (2008). Victims’ rights in an adversary system. Duke Law Journal, 58(2), 237–274. Boka, W. (2004). Domestic violence in farming communities: Overcoming the unique problems posed by the rural setting. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, 9(3), 389–414. Braun, K. (2019). Victim participation rights: Variation across criminal justice systems. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Legal supports and services for rural victims

205

Caplow, S. (1998). What if there is no client: Prosecutors as counselors of crime victims. Clinical Law Review, 5(1), 1–46. Cardenas, J. (1986). The crime victim in the prosecutorial process. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 9(2), 357–398. Cassell, P. G. (1999). Barbarians at the gates? A reply to the critics of the Victims’ Rights Amendment. Utah Law Review, 1999(2), 479–544. Cofey, G. (2006). The victim of crime and the criminal justice process. Irish Criminal Law Journal, 16(3), 15–22. Curriden, M. (1994). Small-town justice. ABA Journal, 80(11), 64–70. Daigle, L. E., Harris, M. N., & Mummert, S. J. (2019). Crime victims and their unmet civil legal needs: Pro bono service provision among private attorneys. Journal of Victimology and Victim Justice, 2(1), 26–46. Davis, R. C., & Mulford, C. (2008). Victim rights and new remedies: Finally getting victims their due. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24(2), 198–208. Davis, W. (2020, February 1). No country for rural lawyers: Small-town attorneys still fnd it hard to thrive. ABA Journal. Retrieved from https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/ article/no-country-for-rural-lawyers Deason Center. (2020). Greening the desert: Strategies and innovations to recruit, train, and retain criminal law practitioners for STAR communities. Retrieved from https://www.smu.edu/-/ media/Site/Law/Deason-Center/Publications/STAR-Justice/Greening-the-Desert/ Report-Greening-the-Desert-FINAL.pdf?la=en Edmondson, C. (1996). Rural courts, the rural community and the challenge of change. In T. D. McDonalds, R. A. Wood, & M. A. Pfüg (Eds.), Rural criminal justice: Conditions, constraints & challenges (pp. 93–109). Salem, WI: Shefeld Publishing Company. Elbers, N. A., Meijer, S., Becx, I. M., Schijns, A. J., & Akkermans, A. J. (2020). The role of victims’ lawyers in criminal proceedings in the Netherlands. European Journal of Criminology, 19, 830–848. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370820931851 Fahnestock, K. (1992). Not in my country. Judge’s Journal, 31(3), 10–36. Garvin, M., & Beloof, D. E. (2015). Crime victim agency: Independent lawyers for sexual assault victims. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 13(1), 67–88. Getto, C. R., & Pollack, D. (2015). Meeting the challenge of child maltreatment in rural areas. Child Law Practice, 34(3), 33–39. Gillis, J. W.,  & Beloof, D. E. (2002). Next step for a maturing victim rights movement: Enforcing crime victim rights in the courts. McGeorge Law Review, 33(4), 689–703. Haksgaard, H. (2020). Court-appointment compensation and rural access to justice. University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy (Minnesota), 14(1), 88–129. Kerrick, A. (2014). Justice is more than jail: Civil legal needs of sexual assault victims. Advocate (Idaho State Bar), 57(1), 38–42. Kornblum, L. S., & Pollack, D. (2019, September 9). Out of luck: Need a rural family law attorney? Wisconsin Lawyer, 92(8). Retrieved from https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=92&Issue=8&ArticleID=27194 Laird, L. (2014, October 1). In rural America, there are job opportunities and a need for lawyers. ABA Journal. Retrieved from https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/ too_many_lawyers_not_here._in_rural_america_lawyers_are_few_and_far_between Logan, T. K., Stevenson, E., Evans, L., & Leukefeld, C. (2004). Rural and urban women’s perceptions of barriers to health, mental health, and criminal justice services: Implications for Victim Services. Violence and Victims, 19(1), 37–62. McCammon, S. (2021, July  4). Lawyer calls SCOTUS decision backing tribal police authority a ‘victory’. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2021/ 07/04/1013044440/lawyer-calls-scotus-decision-backing-tribal-police-authority-avictory

206

Hannah Haksgaard

Oltman, B. (2016). A perfect storm: Agriculture and the crime of the 21st century: Legal implications of elder fnancial abuse in the agricultural industry. NAELA Journal, 12(1), 13–32. Otano, K. L. (2020). Victimizing the victim again: Weaponizing continuances in criminal cases. Ave Maria Law Review, 18, 110–135. Pruitt, L. R. (2008). Place matters: Domestic violence and rural diference. Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society, 23(2), 347–416. Pruitt, L. R., Kool, A. L., Sudeall, L., Statz, M., Conway, D. M., & Haksgaard, H. (2018). Legal deserts: Multi-state perspective on rural access to justice. Harvard Law and Policy Review, 13(1), 15–156. Pruitt, L. R., McKinney, J., & Calhoun, B. (2015). Justice in the hinterlands: Arkansas as case study of the rural lawyer shortage and evidence-based solutions to alleviate it. University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 37(4), 573–720. Pruitt, L. R.,  & Showman, B. E. (2014). Law stretched thin: Access to justice in rural America. South Dakota Law Review, 59(3), 466–528. Pruitt, L. R., & Williams, R. H. (2018). Rural Justice. Los Angeles Lawyer, 26–32. Rinehart, W. (2021). The digital divide, digital equity, and the nature of the problem. The Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University. Retrieved from https://www. thecgo.org/news/the-digital-divide-digital-equity-and-the-nature-of-the-problem/ Romero, M. (2017). Proft-driven prosecution and the competitive bidding process. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 107(2), 161–212. Romero, M. (2022). Lowball rural defense. Washington University Law Review, 99(3), 1081–1120. Romero, M., Tunheim, J., & Williams, C. (2022). Intimate partner violence: A best practices guide for prosecutors in smaller jurisdictions. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=4047368 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4047368 Runge, R. (2014). Addressing the access to justice crises in rural America. Human Rights, 40(3), 15–17. State of North Dakota Courts. (2022, January  28). Supreme Court accepting applications for Rural Attorney Recruitment Program. Retrieved from https://www.ndcourts.gov/news/ north-dakota/north-dakota-supreme-court/general-news/supreme-court-acceptingapplications-for-the-rural-attorney-recruitment-program Statz, M. (2021). On shared sufering: Judicial intimacy in the rural northland. Law and Society Review, 55(1), 5–37. Statz, M.,  & Termuhlen, P. (2020). Rural legal deserts are a critical health determinant. American Journal of Public Health, 110(10), 1519–1522. Yin, T. (2021). Learning from the Jefrey Epstein mess: It’s time to add a cause of action for damages to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. University of Kansas Law Review, 69(3), 447–492. Young, M., & Stein, J. (2004). The history of the crime victims’ movement in the United States, Department of Justice Ofce for Victims of Crime Oral History Project. Retrieved from https:// www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/ncvrw/2005/pg4c.html

CASE STUDY South Dakota’s rural attorney recruitment program

South Dakota, a mostly rural state in the United States, has a population of almost 900,000 people living across 77,184 square miles (124,215 square kilometres). Like almost all state jurisdictions in the United States, South Dakota has a rural lawyer shortage (Goetzinger & Morris, 2014). In order to combat that shortage, the State of South Dakota has partnered with the South Dakota State Bar Association to create the Rural Attorney Recruitment Program, a funded incentive program to bring attorneys to rural communities (Gilbertson, 2014; Laird, 2014). The Program provides monetary payments for fve years while the participating attorney establishes a practice in a rural area of South Dakota (Goetzinger, 2013). Participants have joined existing frms and have opened their own solo practices. As of 2022, thirteen attorneys have successfully completed their fve-year commitment to rural practice, twelve attorneys are actively participating and several more have signed contracts to begin practice soon (South Dakota Unifed Judicial System, 2022). By all accounts, the Program has been successful in recruiting and retaining rural lawyers (Pruitt et al., 2018; Davis, 2020). This case study highlights the legal work that these attorneys are doing and several examples of how these new rural attorneys have benefted victims. Many participants have been heavily involved in the criminal legal system in their respective counties, ensuring there is local legal counsel to prosecute criminal cases and provide defence work. Two participants are full-time prosecutors. Several other participants are part-time prosecutors in smaller counties that do not have a fulltime prosecutor. Because no rural counties in South Dakota have a public defender, most of the participants who are not ‘conficted out’ by their prosecutorial work take court-appointed defence work. Several participants prosecute in one county and take court-appointed defence work in neighbouring counties. Almost all participants do estate planning work, which helps to combat elder abuse, preventing even more potential victimisation in their rural communities. Other participants do

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-27

208

Hannah Haksgaard

business planning and real estate work, all of which combats potential fraud. While Chapter  14 has already argued that simply having lawyers in rural communities benefts victims and governments should incentivise rural practice, a few concrete examples can demonstrate how the participants in the Rural Attorney Recruitment Program are helping victims in South Dakota. Ms Rachelle Norberg is in solo practice in the city of Burke (population 637) in Gregory County (population 4,186). She does title work, is an abstractor, takes court-appointed criminal defence cases, is a city attorney for four communities, handles involuntary commitments, handles probates and does estate planning. In one case, Norberg represented the grandfather of a child victim. The child was the victim of alleged abuse at the hands of her custodial father, and an abuse and neglect proceeding had been opened against the father. The grandfather wanted to care for the granddaughter and approached Norberg. On behalf of the grandfather, Norberg fled for emergency guardianship and later for permanent guardianship. After obtaining permanent guardianship for the child victim, Norberg then helped the grandfather gain guardianship of the girl’s sister. Because Norberg was successful in obtaining guardianship for the grandfather, this child victim was removed from a potentially abusive home and kept out of foster care. The legal guardianship also allowed the girl to receive services through the grandfather. Both girls are doing well in the grandfather’s home and are growing up together as siblings. Norberg stays in contact with the grandfather and has been able to see both girls grow and succeed. For Norberg, this is the case she thinks about when she has tough days; it makes her feel like she did something right and had an important impact on her community. Mr  Kirby Krogman is in solo practice in the city of White River (population 664) in Mellette County (population 2,052). Krogman is a prosecutor in one county, handles court-appointed criminal defence cases in another county, does estate planning and ranches on the side with his dad and other family members. Although Krogman’s focus in the criminal legal system is on prosecution and defence work, he still manages to serve victims. In one civil case, Krogman served as counsel to his father, who was the victim of a breached contract where the buyer at a sale never tendered payment to Krogman’s father. Krogman fled a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and seeking payment. He successfully obtained a judgment for his father, the victim. In another instance, Krogman prosecuted a case where a stolen vehicle was towed and stored at a private lot for a nightly fee. The victim in the case balked at paying the storage fee, a requirement before the private company would release the vehicle. As the prosecutor, Krogman asked for, and the judge granted, restitution for the vehicle storage. More importantly, because of this case and a discussion involving Krogman and other local ofcials, the county will now be storing towed and impounded vehicles itself, saving future victims the expensive fees of private storage. Mr Derrick Johnson practices in a two-lawyer frm in the city of Scotland (population 659) in Bon Homme County (population 6,929). Johnson does criminal

Legal supports and services for rural victims

209

defence, estate planning, real estate transactions and family law. He is the city attorney for three communities. Recently, Johnson represented victims of domestic violence in two cases. In one case, Johnson represented the victim in a divorce matter. In the other, he represented the victim in obtaining a temporary protective order. That case was particularly complicated because the perpetrator was a law enforcement ofcer in the small community. These few examples show how victims beneft from the presence of local lawyers in rural communities. The critical point is that these attorneys were available to help victims because of South Dakota’s Rural Attorney Recruitment Program. It is this program, through its mentorship and annual stipend, which has made it possible for more young attorneys to begin their legal careers in rural areas. Like almost all jurisdictions, South Dakota would beneft from more rural attorneys, and the Rural Attorney Recruitment Program continues to seek more participants. But for now, only a few years in, the program has shown its success in many ways, including by providing legal services for rural victims.

References Davis, W. (2020, February 1). No country for rural lawyers: Small-town attorneys still fnd it hard to thrive. ABA Journal. Retrieved from https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/ article/no-country-for-rural-lawyers Gilbertson, D. (2014). Refections on the rural practice of law in South Dakota: Past, present and future. South Dakota Law Review, 59(3), 433–443. Goetzinger, P. G. (2013, July-August). Project Rural Practice: Saving an endangered species by recruiting the Sweet Sixteen. Bar Leader. Retrieved from https://www. americanbar.org/groups/bar_services/publications/bar_leader/2012_13/july_august/ project_rural_practice_saving_endangered_species_recruiting_sweet_sixteen/ Goetzinger, P. G., & Morris, R. L. (2014). Project Rural Practice: Its people & its purpose. South Dakota Law Review, 59(3), 444–462. Laird, L. (2014, October 1). In rural America, there are job opportunities and a need for lawyers. ABA Journal. Retrieved from https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/ too_many_lawyers_not_here._in_rural_america_lawyers_are_few_and_far_between Pruitt, L. R., Kool, A. L., Sudeall, L., Statz, M., Conway, D. M., & Haksgaard, H. (2018). Legal deserts: Multi-state perspective on rural access to justice. Harvard Law and Policy Review, 13(1), 15–156. South Dakota Unifed Judicial System. (2022). Rural attorney recruitment program participants. Retrieved from https://ujs.sd.gov/uploads/RuralAttorneyRecruitmentProgramPartici pants.pdf

15 POLICING RURAL VICTIMS Danielle Watson, John Scott, Tifany Sutherland and Lamese Laponi

In early rural criminology, ‘rural crime’ was typically associated with property crime, and there was an efort to place the property owner, typically white men, as the victims of such crime, albeit often perpetrated by white men (Scott & Hogg, 2015). Critical, green and neo-colonial criminologies have provided opportunities for reconsideration as to how the perpetrators and victims of crime in rural places are framed. When it comes to the visibility of crime in the rural context, the majority of attention has been paid to young people (in particular, young Indigenous people) as ofenders involved in street crime and property ofences (Barclay et al., 2007; Donnermeyer et  al., 2013). Conversely, certain typologies of crime have largely been absent from the public discourse and over-emphasised in much of the criminological literature; such crime types include farming and agricultural crime (Scott & Biron, 2010) and domestic and other unrecognised forms of violence (Carrington et al., 2013). In this way, rural places have been subject to over-policing and under-policing of populations in much the same way as urban spaces. In general terms, rural spaces are subject to contradiction in the counterposing of mythical notions of a passive idyll with the harsh reality of widespread violence and abuse (Krishnan et al., 2001). Early rural criminology sought to resolve ‘problems’ considered to be in some way ‘real’ as opposed to analysing how crime problems were socially constructed. Contemporary rural criminological arguments, however, depict a shift in focus away from anecdotal arguments about urban spaces as endemic of crime and disorder, and rural spaces as crime free and unmarred by urbanising elements, to more critical approaches examining crime, victimisation and other criminological issues in rural spaces (Donnermeyer & DeKeseredy, 2014). These arguments have also moved past a primary focus on crimes beyond the borders of metropolitan cities in developed countries to more inclusive discussions about crimes and victims in sparsely inhabited and remote areas across the globe.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-28

Policing rural victims

211

Donnermeyer (2019), for instance, has argued for a nuanced approach to understanding rural criminology and rural crime, suggesting the need for more theoretical diversity and global inclusiveness. This acknowledgement of the need to expand further the descriptive scope of rural criminology underscores advancements in understandings of rurality, victims, recognition of the need to further push descriptive boundaries and a need to (re)examine response strategies. This chapter contributes to the rural criminological dialogue by unpacking the characterisation complexities specifc to understandings of rural crime and rural victims – and diferently oriented rural spaces which impact on police and their ability to respond. It expands on defnitions of rurality and rural spaces and highlights the multi-dimensionality of rurality as a concept beyond simplistic descriptions. It considers victim typologies that align with conceptualisations of rurality and presents arguments to highlight the complexities associated with the policing of rural spaces and victims. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the importance of context in arguments about rurality and ofer recommendations for further discussions of policing rural victims. A case study is presented to highlight peculiarities associated with policing victims in a specifc rural small-island developing country in the South Pacifc.

Crime, rurality and the rural victim From a critical perspective, crimes do not emerge in a social vacuum but rather are grounded in rigid gendered and racial hierarchies and economic forms of discrimination, which operate both to produce and inhibit specifc representation of crime problems (Scott & Hogg, 2015). These perspectives focus on established statutes as opposed to positions based on societal dynamisms and culturally or traditionally acceptable behaviours that do not align with behaviours deemed acceptable in legal statutes (Watson, 2016, 2018). Here, the concept of power is at the forefront and involves questions of not only who has material power in terms of resources and ownership, but who or which groups have the ability to defne the crime problem. As has been noted elsewhere (Scott & Hogg, 2015), what is sometimes referred to as ‘organisation’ is itself crime productive to the extent that tightly integrated social groups which possess social and/or economic capital may defne what belongs and what does not belong (that which is ‘disorganised’ and presents as a threat to a prevailing vision of social order). Indeed, lack of social or economic capital may render some groups incapable of organisational capacity and with it, the ability to articulate contrary visions of the dominant order in a particular place.

The other rural Rural places present as symbolic and experienced dimensions of geographies, and numerous defnitions of rurality and rural spaces point to the multi-dimensionality of rurality as a concept (Cromartie & Bucholtz, 2008). More complex descriptions include population size and geographic isolation, but also account for factors such

212

Danielle Watson, John Scott, Tifany Sutherland, Lamese Laponi

as size and diversity of the economy, internal administrative boundaries, ease of access and use and availability of resources (Braga et al., 2015; Marsden, 1998). All of these descriptions become less relevant and somewhat problematic to apply to less developed countries with small or micro-populations, multi-state jurisdictions, single sector economies and diferently understood urban spaces. Concepts of rurality are informed by context and rural inhabitants. The rural idyll has been characterised as a fgurative landscape containing all of the diferent understandings of rurality. Criminological idyllisation involves processes which produce stylised representations of the countryside, while simultaneously rendering certain aspects of rurality marginalised or invisible (Bell, 2006). Certain ‘crimes’ are hidden: for example, the genocide that occurred in colonies to create rural spaces. That is, the theft of land and resources that typifed the colonial and now postcolonial experience. The destruction of rural environments has only recently been highlighted by green criminology. Here, the landscape itself is a victim of crimes perpetrated on it. Representations of place in rural criminology often ignore certain places which challenge a neat and bounded conception of the rural as agricultural. Bell (2006, p.  151) has introduced the concept of the ‘rural abject’ to describe “those people and things dispelled from the idyll”. Some notable ‘other rurals’ include places of economic decline and decay (post-productivist places), the industrial countryside, places of resource extraction, remote place and/or discrete Indigenous communities. Another context where the concept of the ‘other rural’ is increasingly evident is that of islands. Specifc examinations of criminality in island spaces have been quite rare. In one example, Cain (2001, p. 35) looks at how crime and justice play out in the largely isolated (both geographically and criminologically) South Pacifc islands; in particular, she notes how levels of victimisation in such places remain a ‘dark fgure’. Other scholars have focused on links between tourism and crime in the Caribbean islands, with a specifc focus on outsiders (tourists) as victims (see, for example, Albuquerque & McElroy, 1999). Some remote islands, such as the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands, are stereotypically positioned as hubs of corporate criminality in the form of tax evasion. More recently, there has been work done to develop an understanding of how crime and violence impact upon remote island spaces in the context of historically embedded social and cultural networks (Howes et al., 2021; Scott & Staines, 2020). There remains a void, however, in the acknowledgement of the complex organisation of Small-Island Developing States in the Pacifc (SIDSITP) with multi-island jurisdictions and compound rurality – rural spaces beyond the more densely populated areas are usually characterised as outer islands or islands set apart from the mainland or central business district in rural criminological scholarship.

Rural others If ‘other rurals’ count as those remote spaces that are somehow redacted from everyday conceptualisations of rurality, ‘rural others’ present as the individuals (and

Policing rural victims

213

their communities) who are in similar ways largely absent from traditional descriptions of rurality. Certain groups have been dominant in identifcations of rural space and the rural idyll, especially landowners. In criminological terms, the identifcation of this class of person as potential victims of crime in country settings has been persistent (for example, see Barclay et al., 2007). Alternatively, Philo (1997) has been particularly strident in arguing that rural studies have continued to ignore various rural others – those who have efectively been painted out of the landscape. Such rural others can include sexual minorities; young people; Indigenous peoples; people of colour; and destitute, poor and itinerant groups, such as travellers or ‘backpackers’, farm workers – a demographic largely represented in discourses on problematic police/citizen interface (Halfacree, 2003; Scott & Hogg, 2015). Scott and Hogg (2015) argue that a common feature of other rurals and rural others is their apparent lack of productivity. Typically, these groups, as victims of crime, are subject to interpersonal violence (see, for example, Flood  & Hamilton, 2005). While it is clear that anyone at any time can be a victim of crime, it is equally apparent that in order to be constructed/accepted as a genuine victim, certain social processes have to take place. Circumstances of race, class, gender and orientation have continually been shown to be important in the construction of victimhood in relation to diferent types of crime. For example, it has been argued that sexual status and gender politics are crucial in considering how victims of violent crime are framed (Richardson & May, 1999). It is not just that these other places and peoples are hidden or silenced in all rural myth-making, as in some cases they are made visible. Rural gossip and/or media does much to highlight diference, diversity and fragmentation as problems in the countryside. And as noted previously, criminological research has reinforced this work by prioritising the voices of the powerful. Fear of crime and the discourses accompanying it are a manifestation of specifc social fgurations and power relations.

Policing and the politics of belonging Research has emphasised that police culture strongly infuences how police think and act (Skolnick  & Bayley, 1986). Ofcers take on defnitions, procedures and justifcations about their role in the service which refect the culture of the working unit as opposed to the community which they serve (Chan, 1997). In communities characterised by fragmentation and confict, police are likely to develop strong ties of mutual dependence and socialise primarily with each other. In contrast to ofcers from more homogenous towns, they clearly articulate the ‘us-them’ division indicative of police culture (Jobes, 2003, p. 13). Police may adopt a ‘closed shop’ mentality, avoiding criticism and harassment by isolating and insulating themselves from the communities they serve (Jobes, 2002). The former is a more accurate depiction of policing in SIDSITP. Despite assumptions about police as neutral agents of the state tasked with the responsibility of enforcing sovereign laws, the politics of belonging informs who gets policed or which populations are over-policed or under-policed (Loader, 1997;

214

Danielle Watson, John Scott, Tifany Sutherland, Lamese Laponi

Steinberg, 2014; Watson, 2018). Further, how police do their work largely is a product of the environment in which they work. A consistent aspect of research into rural policing has been the observation that rural police adopt a generalist style or community-oriented approach to policing grounded in close associations with residents (Thurman & McGarrell, 2014). The rural police ofcer is able to respond to an assortment of departmental and community needs, only a few of which are statutorily defned as law enforcement responsibilities (Payne et al., 2005). Thus, law enforcement is only one function of policing, particularly in rural settings, and at times not the primary responsibility of state-appointed individuals but instead the domain of other security actors (Swann et al., 2015). Greater importance is accorded to establishing and maintaining public tranquillity or ‘the peace’, as opposed to imposing law and order at any cost. Most police operating within rural spaces enjoy and readily adapt to this role (Jobes, 2002; Dinnen & Braithwaite, 2009). Given the emphasis on generalist service provision, what develops is a ‘localistic’– as opposed to ‘legalistic’ – approach to policing. With a localistic model of policing, the public infuences how policing is carried out, defning important aspects of the role of the police, including police discretion. In contrast to metropolitan policing, where discretion is predominantly infuenced by the organisational structure of a department, rural police discretion is infuenced by the way in which the community is organised and the presence of other security actors perceived as legitimate (Watson et al., 2021). In SIDSITP, police typically are residents of the communities they serve. Their private lives are closely intertwined with their public role (Watson et al., 2021). Ofcers are integrated into a local community and make efective use of established local social networks. While the localised aspects of rural policing can be viewed largely as a positive, immersion into the community can exacerbate the problematic aspects of police work. The localistic model of policing does not necessarily translate to an idealised form of community policing. A localistic approach may be helpful in well-integrated communities but is likely to present problems in less integrated communities where ofcers may be encouraged to favour particular social groups. Community groups may signifcantly infuence how police determine who is and is not subject to surveillance and protection. The outcome may lead to over policing or under policing of specifc-interest communities (Scott  & Jobes, 2007). Often rural ofcers are expected to become part of the community even if it compromises objectivity (Jobes, 2003, p. 11). While many rural communities tend to have a strong sense of geographic and social identity, the problem remains: who is defned as belonging to the community? Residency alone does not signify belonging. To be valued in a rural community, an individual or group must be regarded as contributing to the general prosperity of the community, and this is often signifed in terms of ‘productivity’.

Policing, victimisation and small-island developing states in the Pacifc An under-researched geographic area in rural criminological discourses is the Pacifc. SIDSITP are dispersed across a large expanse of the Pacifc Ocean. These

Policing rural victims

215

multi-island microstates, though commonly subject to either a one-region classifcation or geographically tagged Asia-Pacifc, are historically, culturally, politically and economically distinct. Diferences also exist in their ethnic compositions (with a large number being homogenous) and population sizes. Despite their uniqueness, SIDSITP experience a range of similar challenges underscored by their colonial histories (George, 2017), small economies with high levels of foreign aid dependency (Lawson, 2017) and complex regulatory systems (Watson & Dinnen, 2020). This section of the chapter draws upon original research to illustrate some of the arguments already presented, focussing on the relatively underexplored context of SIDSITP and the challenges faced in policing victims in these spaces. Many islands in the Pacifc are occupied by Indigenous groups and are largely ethnically homogenous. A key aspect of the island-idyll is the notion that islands embody ‘communitarian’ qualities. Communities are seen as collections of people sharing certain interests, sentiments, behaviour and objects by virtue of their membership of a social group (Amoamo, 2012, p. 427). In this way they might resemble the type of gemeinschaft agricultural ‘communities’ described in early rural criminological research. Indeed, a characteristic of such places is that they tend to experience low levels of economic capital and high levels of social capital. Putnam (1993) has discussed the relative density of social networks with reference to bonding and bridging ties; Bonding ties being evident in closed and intimate groups in which all members are connected and interact exclusively with one another. These ties are inward looking and occur among people who see themselves as homogenous and coming from the same social network. In contrast, bridging capital is outward looking and represents the links between diferent groups of people. It has been posited that a lack of both types of ties results in alienation, loneliness and what the French sociologist Émile Durkheim referred to as anomie, often viewed as a condition of urbanised settings (Woodhouse, 2006). Much research in criminology has suggested that smaller, often rural, communities have an abundance of bonding capital and are cohesive and friendly places with low levels of crime. As such, they are considered relatively safe. As with mainland rural settings, consideration of geography – especially remoteness – is important to understanding the challenges and strengths of SIDSITP. Isolation in particular rendered them relatively resistant historically to colonial incursions, ensuring a higher degree of cultural resilience and continuity than what might usually be associated with colonised peoples in mainland settings, such as Canada and Australia. Such isolated places have also shown resilience towards the impacts of globalisation; one example of this being that telecommunication technologies have often been introduced relatively late in such settings. The isolation and bounded nature of the island can readily inform the politics of belonging (Hermann et al., 2015). Unlike culturally homogenous mainland agricultural settings, crime rates for property crime in SIDSITP are relatively high and second only to crimes against persons, particularly crimes against women and girls (Rimonte, 1991). Crimes related to domestic, intimate-partner and family violence are persistently among the highest in the world, with intimate partner violence prevalence being 51 percent in

216

Danielle Watson, John Scott, Tifany Sutherland, Lamese Laponi

Melanesia, 41 percent in Micronesia and 39 percent in Polynesia (WHO, 2021) and account for one of the largest numbers of calls for police services. Despite assumptions that the ecology of an isolated and geographically bounded setting might provide a formal degree of natural surveillance not aforded elsewhere, which might prevent certain highly visible crimes (such as property ofences), the crime statistics for the Pacifc island nations refect otherwise (Watson et al., 2021). An excess of bonding capital can produce intolerance and insularity. For example, crime in remote areas is often blamed on newcomers or temporary visitors to closed communities. Given that many Pacifc islands are classed as developing and have low to very low levels of economic capital, social class is less infuential than status in determining power. Status may derive from traditional and cultural titles, familial ties, age or gender. Scott and Staines (2020), for example, observed that while property crime was low in the Torres Strait Region, it was perceived as a serious problem perpetuated by young people. This perception of the crime problem refected anxieties relating to the impact of globalisation on socialisation of the young and the resilience of local cultures. Nonetheless, statistics in this region suggested relatively low rates of property and high rates of interpersonal violence. Some forms of crime – particularly domestic and family violence, but also some property crime – are not always brought to the attention of police in remote island settings because of the dense social capital and opaque networks present. For example, police could be placed in difcult positions if they need to respond to ofences committed by family and kin; sometimes this means that crimes, including serious physical violence, go unreported. The small size and isolation of the communities increases opportunities for intimate and informal interaction between police and local communities. A local ofcer can be well known to the community and connected to the community through informal social networks. Ofcers can integrate into a local community and make efective use of established local social networks, adopting a ‘peacekeeping’ role commensurate with community expectations regarding the proper duties of a police ofcer. The integration of police, sworn and unsworn, should not be viewed as inherently bad. Strong relationships with local communities are vital to police being able to carry out their roles. The discretion held by police may also be conceived of as an ability to uphold and enforce cultural norms in the space between traditional methods and the formal (settler-imposed) justice system. However, it may equally mean that access to justice may be difcult or impossible for some victims of crime, especially women experiencing domestic and family violence. Often, rural communities have an abundance of bonding capital and are cohesive and friendly places with low levels of crime. As such, they are considered relatively safe. Scott and Staines (2020), in a case study of Pitcairn Island, found high-density social networks and associated social capital was supportive of crime. Pitcairn, from its earliest years, was a patriarchal society where sexual misconduct and abuse was not highly regulated because of an apparent need to procreate and maintain the Island’s population. Sexual violence was for a long time tolerated in

Policing rural victims

217

this community and had become normative. Their research showed that there was little or no efort on the part of locals to police sexual violence, and it was only outside intervention, in the form of the British colonial administration, that managed to intervene and police sexual violence and punish ofenders. Here a legalistic form of regulation prevailed over localised interventions. Ironically, however, the strength of local norms meant that most locals were sympathetic to the ofenders rather than the victims whose very status as victims was seen to be built on ‘foreign’ norms.

Conclusion Contemporary research on crime in rural areas dispels notions about rural spaces as less impacted by crime and criminality. The absence of certain types of crimes is not indicative of a lesser likelihood of victimisation. Rather, the efect of victimisation is likely to be more severe in poorly policed rural spaces with limited objective or non-community related support mechanisms and social services, and even greater issues of access to justice. Though not applicable to all rural spaces, rurality creates an ideal context for location and individual realities to inform who is identifed as a victim, who is policed and who should be protected. As is the reality in urban spaces and conventionally categorised rural spaces, having experienced a crime does not mean you are perceived or categorised as a victim by the police or the community. This chapter cautions against assumptions about victimhood and ‘entitlements’ to protection. Diferent settings will produce diferent articulations of the ‘ideal victim’ of crime (the construct explored in the introductory and concluding chapters of this book), informing how police respond to crime. Islands, for long idyllised in Northern texts as communitarian places and championed by criminologists as embodying restorative approaches to justice are, like other settings, not void of the politics of belonging, which itself informs constructs of victimisation. More work needs to be done on conceptualisations of rurality and constructions of victims within diferently constructed rural spaces such as islands. Further, criminologists in reimagining islands need to look at them as sites of confict and harmony, as manifesting power as well as community and presenting complex challenges for law enforcers charged with the responsibility of operating in such spaces.

References Albuquerque, K., & McElroy, J. (1999). Tourism and crime in the Caribbean. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 968–984. Amoamo, M. (2012). Fieldwork in remote communities: An ethnographic case study of Pitcairn island. Field guide to case study research in tourism, hospitality and leisure. Advances in Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6, 417–438. Barclay, E., Hogg, R., & Scott, J. (2007). Young people and crime in rural communities. In E. Barclay, J. Donnermeyer, J. Scott, & R. Hogg (Eds.), Crime in rural Australia (pp. 100– 112). Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press.

218

Danielle Watson, John Scott, Tifany Sutherland, Lamese Laponi

Bell, D. (2006). Variation of the rural idyll. In P. Cloke, T. Marsden, & P. Mooney (Eds.), Handbook of rural studies (pp. 149–160). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Braga, A. A., Welsh, B. C.,  & Schnell, C. (2015). Can policing disorder reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(4), 567–588. Cain, T. (2001). An overview of crime, law and justice in the South Pacifc Islands. Criminal Justice Matters, 45(1), 35–36. Carrington, K., McIntosh K., Hogg, R., & Scott, J. (2013). Rural masculinities and the internalisation of violence in agricultural communities. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 2(1), 3–24. Chan, J. (1997). Changing police culture: Policing in a multicultural society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cromartie, J., & Bucholtz, S. (2008). Defning the “rural” in rural America. Amber Waves: The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pages 1–8, June. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/uersaw/122957.html Dinnen, S., & Braithwaite, J. (2009). Reinventing policing through the prism of the colonial kiap. Policing & Society, 19(2), 161–173. Donnermeyer, J. (2019). The international emergence of rural criminology: Implications for the development and revision of criminological theory for rural contexts. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 5(1), 1–18. Donnermeyer, J. F., & DeKeseredy, W. (2014). Rural criminology. London: Routledge. Donnermeyer, J. F., Scott, J., & Barclay, E. (2013). How rural criminology informs critical thinking in criminology. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 2(3), 69–91. Flood, M., & Hamilton, C. (2005). Mapping homophobia in Australia. Australia Institute for a Just, Sustainable, Peaceful Future. Retrieved from https://australiainstitute.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2020/12/WP79_8.pdf George, N. (2017). Policing “conjugal order”: Gender, hybridity and vernacular security in Fiji. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 19(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461 6742.2017.1283248 Halfacree, K. (2003). Landscapes of rurality: Rural others/other rurals. In I. Robertson & P. Richards (Eds.), Studying cultural landscapes (pp. 141–169). London: Arnold. Hermann, E., Kempf, W., & van Meijl, T. (Eds.). (2015). Belonging in Oceania: Movement, place-making and multiple identifcation of Pacifc perspectives. Volume 3, Studies of the European Society for Oceanists, 3. New York: Berghahn. Jobes, P. C. (2002). Efective ofcer and good neighbour: Problems and perceptions among police in rural Australia. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 25(2), 256–273. Jobes, P. C. (2003). Human ecology and rural policing: A  grounded theoretical analysis of how personal constraints and community characteristics infuence strategies of law enforcement in rural New South Wales, Australia. Police Practice and Research, 4(1), 3–19. Krishnan, S. P., Hilbert, J. C., & Van Leeuwen, D. (2001). Domestic violence and helpseeking behaviors among rural women: Results from a shelter-based study. Family and Community Health, 24(1), 28–38. Loader, I. (1997). Policing and the social: Questions of symbolic power. British Journal of Sociology, 48(1), 1–18. Marsden, T. (1998). New rural territories: Regulating the diferentiated rural spaces. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), 107–117.

Policing rural victims

219

Payne, B. K., Berg, B. L.,  & Sun, I. Y. (2005). Policing in small town America: Dogs, drunks, disorder, and dysfunction. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(1), 31–41. Philo, C. (1997). Of other rurals? In P. Cloke  & J. Little (Eds.), Contested countryside cultures: Otherness, marginalisation and rurality (pp. 19–50). London: Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203974124-8/ruralschris-philo Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community. The American Prospect, 4(13) 35–42. Richardson, D., & May, H. (1999). Deserving victims?: Sexual status and the social construction of violence. The Sociological Review, 47(2), 308–331. Rimonte, N. (1991). A question of culture: Cultural approval of violence against women in the Pacifc-Asian community and the cultural defense. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1311–1326. Scott, J.,  & Biron, D. (2010). Wolf Creek, rurality and the Australian gothic. Continuum (Mount Lawley, W.A.), 24(2), 307–322. Scott, J., & Hogg, R. (2015). Strange and stranger ruralities: Social constructions of rural crime in Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 39, 171–179. Scott, J., & Jobes, P. (2007). Policing in rural Australia: The country cop as law enforcer and local resident. In E. Barclay, J. Donnermeyer, J. Scott, & R. Hogg (Eds.), Crime in rural Australia (pp. 127–137). Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Scott, J., & Staines, Z. (2020). Charting the place of islands in criminology: On isolation, integration and insularity. Theoretical Criminology, 25(4), 578–600). Skolnick, J. H., & Bayley, D. H. (1986). The new blue line. New York: Free Press. Steinberg, J. (2014). Policing, state power, and the transition from apartheid to democracy: A new perspective. African Afairs, 113(451), 173–191. Swann, R., Green, A., Johns, N., & Sloan, L. (2015). Street pastors as substitutes for trust in the context of plural policing. Safer Communities, 14(4), 168–182. Thurman, Q., & McGarrell, E. F. (2014). Community policing in a rural setting (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Watson, D. (2016). The power of community branding: An examination of the impact of imposed categories on policing a ‘crime hotspot community’. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 11(1), 51–68. Watson, D. (2018). Police and the policed: Language and power relations on the margins of the Global South. New York: Springer. Watson, D., Amin, S. N., & Pino, N. (2021). Self-evaluating performance: An analysis of police integrity, professionalism and service provision from the South Pacifc. Policing and Society, 1–14. Watson, D., Boateng, F. D.,  & Miles-Johnson, T. (2019). Legitimizing policing practices: A study of stakeholder perceptions of police trustworthiness, efectiveness and relationship with the community. Police Practice and Research, 22(1), 623–639. Watson, D., & Dinnen, S. (2020). Contextualising policing in Melanesia: History, adaptation and adoption problematised. In S. Amin, D. Watson, & C. Girard (Eds.), Mapping security in the Pacifc: A focus on context, gender and organisational culture (pp. 161–173). London: Routledge. WHO (World Health Organizaton). (2021, March 9). Devastatingly pervasive: 1 in 3 women globally experience violence. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news/item/09-03-2021devastatingly-pervasive-1-in-3-women-globally-experience-violence Woodhouse, A. (2006). People are accepted as long as they don’t misbehave’: The relationship between social capital and crime in rural Australia. Rural Society, 16(1), 5–24.

CASE STUDY Policing rural victims in the Pacifc Island State of Tuvalu

Tuvalu is largely an ethnically homogenous multi-island sovereign state comprised of six atolls and three reef islands, located in the South Pacifc Ocean between Australia and Hawaii (refer to Figure 15.1). It has a population of approximately 10,507 people distributed across the nine land masses: Funafuti (6320); Vaitupu (1061); Nanumaga (491); Nukufetau (597); Nanumea (512); Niutoa (582); Nui (610); Nukulaeae (300); and Niulakita (34). Tuvalu is one of four Small-Island Developing States in the Pacifc (SIDSITP), identifed by the Development Assistance Committee as one of the least developed and most economically vulnerable countries in the world (Watson et  al., 2021). Its primary revenue is derived from migrant remittances (Boland & Dollery, 2007) and fshing licenses (Howes et  al., 2021). The nation’s capital and central business district is located on the island of Funafuti, the most densely populated of the country’s nine land masses. Approximately 60 percent of the local population is based on Funafuti, with the other half dispersed across the other eight land masses commonly referred to as the outer islands. Tuvalu’s eight outer islands can be categorised as compound-rural spaces owing to their sparse populations, the continued threat of depopulation and limited access to the modern conveniences of electricity, running water, water storage and waste collection and disposal (Howes et al., 2021). As is the case in many SIDSITPs, law and order maintenance in Tuvalu refects a fusion of colonial, customary and religious models (Watson et al., 2019). While the Constitution of Tuvalu is acknowledged by the state as the supreme law of Tuvalu, traditional local government assemblies (Falekaupule) on each island contribute to the establishment and upholding of law and order (Pratt & Melei 2018; Oppong, 2016). State laws are upheld parallel to community by-laws, which difer across the nine islands comprising Tuvalu (Pratt & Melei, 2018). With the exception of the police, all other State appointed stakeholders, including courts and

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-29

Policing rural victims

FIGURE 15.1

221

Map of Tuvalu

Source: (This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu#/media/File:Tuvalu_-_Location_Map_(2013)_-_TUV_-_ UNOCHA.svg)

legal representation, are based primarily in the central business district. Day-to-day disputes and societal manifestations of dysfunction are usually resolved at the family, church or community level (often male-dominated) without state involvement (Pratt & Melei, 2018).

Tuvalu Police Service The Tuvalu Police Service is the primary body responsible for law enforcement and the maintenance of order in Tuvalu. There are 101 sworn police ofcers (94 males, 7 females) serving within the land, maritime and prison arms of the organisation (Watson et al., 2021). The ofcers are distributed across Tuvalu’s 9 islands as

222

Danielle Watson, John Scott, Tifany Sutherland, Lamese Laponi

follows: Funafuti (83); Vaitupu (5); Nanumaga (3); Nukufetau (3); Nanumea (2); Niutoa (2); Nui (2); Nukulaeae (1); and Niulakita (0). There is one marine vessel (patrol boat) providing support for ofcers stationed across the nine land masses. A lack of resources or availability of modern facilities on outer islands results in reliance on the marine vessel for correspondence with the police headquarters based in the CBD. Police stations in outer islands lack resources available at the headquarters. Unlike police ofcers on the main island, ofcers on outer islands do not work on shift duty. Rather, they work standard government working hours Monday to Friday from 8.30am to 4.30pm. They are also required to be on standby after working hours and weekends for any calls for assistance from the community.

Policing victims on the outer islands While police are identifed and acknowledged as state appointed law enforcement ofcials, their roles are negotiated and navigated to align with contextual expectations and accepted behaviours. Non-state actors such as community elders occupy the primary roles in resolving disputes and enforcing community by-laws. Instead of serving as the principal law enforcers, police are invited to provide support deemed contextually appropriate. A high value is placed on restorative justice practices and restitution as deemed ft by the community in consultation with the aggrieved individual(s) and (or in the case of domestic and family violence) their family, usually the male representative of the household. Policing in such contexts is primarily focused on appeasing not only the victim, but close relations (family patriarch) of the victim. Ofences, therefore, extend beyond the aggrieved, and justice becomes an act to restore balance at the community level. Instances have been documented where the victim is excluded from decisions relating to how a crime should be dealt with, or their dissatisfaction about a matter is disregarded and compounded by further victimisation. In some instances, police in Tuvalu are invited to execute judgements made by community elders. In such contexts, victim status is determined by the community as opposed to statutes. Someone who commits a crime may not necessarily be construed as the ofender, and the victim can experience further victimisation or criticism for disclosure of a crime. This aligns with the arguments about victim typologies and power explored in the preceding chapter. Police discretion is stretched to include conscionable and/or best scenario decisions in the interest of the ‘greater good’ that may or may not align with legislation, policing policies or policing roles and responsibilities, and may not provide access to justice for victims. In essence, where a call for service extends beyond the capacity of the imported and adapted Western policing model, ofcers as members of the community revert to traditional systems of maintaining societal order which may work in the disservice of the ‘true victim’.

Policing rural victims

223

References Boland, S., & Dollery, B. E. (2007). The economic signifcance of migration and remittances in Tuvalu. In Pacifc economic bulletin. Canberra, ACT: Australia National University Press. Howes, L. M., Watson, D., & Newett, L. (2021). Police as knowledge brokers and keepers of the peace: Perceptions of community policing in Tuvalu. Police Practice and Research, 22(1), 745–762. Oppong, N. (2016). The twists and turns of institutional innovation in small island developing states: The case of Tuvalu. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 54(1), 23–45. Pratt, J., & Melei, T. (2018). One of the smallest prison populations in the world under threat: The case of Tuvalu. In K. Carrington, R. Hogg, J. Scott, & M. Sozzo (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of criminology and the Global South (pp. 729–750). London: Palgrave. Watson, D., Amin, S. N., & Pino, N. (2021). Self-evaluating performance: An analysis of police integrity, professionalism and service provision from the South Pacifc. Policing and Society, 1–14. Watson, D., Boateng, F. D.,  & Miles-Johnson, T. (2019). Legitimizing policing practices: A study of stakeholder perceptions of police trustworthiness, efectiveness and relationship with the community. Police Practice and Research, 22(1), 623–639.

16 THE PROVISION OF SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY FOR RURAL VICTIMS Shelly A. McGrath and Melencia Johnson

Prior research has found that women who are victims of violence that reside in rural areas face specifc obstacles when seeking out services compared with women in urban areas (Grossman et al., 2005; Websdale & Johnson, 1998). Rural victims are less likely to disclose interpersonal violence (IPV) than their urban counterparts (Websdale & Johnson, 1998) making them less likely to utilise any type of services available to them. IPV, it is recognised, implies that violence can involve both women or men as victims (DeKeseredy, 2021), but this chapter discusses issues related to services for rural women who are the victims of abuse from their intimate partners. The issues canvassed about rural women victim services, however, can also be applicable to anyone who is the victim of violence. Logan et al. (2003) found that rural women were more likely than urban women to report that the frst incident of IPV they experienced was prior to seeking the protective order. There are several environmental and personal infuences that determine whether or not a victim of interpersonal violence seeks out services. Victims from rural areas experience geographic isolation, discrimination and prejudice, lack of resources, concerns with confdentiality, local politics and economic disadvantages which all play into their decision to seek services (Logan et al., 2005; Grossman et al., 2005). Rural areas also lack a diversity of services available to victim than do more urban areas. This chapter considers the many barriers that rural victims of intimate partner violence face when trying to access services. The overarching barriers that rural women face include the distance from support services, as well as cultural and individual barriers. Attention will then be focused on the victim-advocate relationship and how these barriers afect their work. The diferent barriers afecting both the victim and advocate will be analysed through the ecological model; the chapter concludes with a discussion of alternative strategies which can be used to make advocacy in rural areas more efective.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-30

The provision of support and advocacy for rural victims

225

Barriers to accessing services for rural victims Rural victims of intimate partner violence are often met with difculties in the ease of accessing support services. The most prevalent barriers are distance from support services, cultural barriers to service and individual barriers to service. These barriers intersect and compound to impede efective support for victims of crime.

Distance from support services One of the reasons many rural IPV victims do not utilise services is because they are geographically isolated and the services are not easily accessible (Eastman  & Bunch, 2007; Grossman et al., 2005; Peek-Asa et al., 2011; Websdale, 1998). Geographic isolation has been defned as “the lack of contact or of sustained interaction with individuals and institutions that represent mainstream society” (Wilson, 1987, p. 60). Rural areas are geographically isolated, and this results in the barriers to services and support and also increases the risk of becoming a victim of IPV (Lanier & Maume, 2009; Logan et al., 2003). In a United States context, Donnelly et al. (1999) found shelters may serve up to ten surrounding rural counties. Johnson et al. (2014) found that for 16 rural counties in the state of Illinois, for instance, there were only seven shelter locations. Peek-Asa et al. (2011) found that 25 percent of rural women live over 40 miles (64 kilometers) from the closest program and that these rural women have a distance to travel that is more than three times that of their urban counterparts. Although victims of IPV seek help from formal networks – such as medical and mental health professionals, law enforcement and victim advocates – they may also seek help from informal networks such as family, friends or from signifcant others to meet their needs (Houston-Kolnik & Vasquez, 2017). Social support from informal networks has been found to be a protective factor against IPV (Lanier & Maume, 2009), especially since formal support networks may be out of reach. Unfortunately, the isolation of victims in rural areas has increased with the restrictions imposed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. For many parts of the United States (and indeed, in many other parts of the world), stay-at-home orders were implemented along with travel restrictions. This increased social isolation and hindered victims from seeking help from formal support services. Stay at home orders also meant that abusers would be spending more time with their victims. Initial studies indicate that calls for service have increased drastically since COVID-19 mandates were put in place (Boserup et al., 2020). These restrictions compounded existing inequalities, oppression and victimisation. In addition to the physical distance between victims and services in rural areas, there is also sociocultural isolation. Websdale (1998) described geographic isolation as the distances from services and support, sociocultural isolation as the patriarchal ideology and the types of social support found in rural areas. Both are associated with increased risk of IPV and have the ability to intensify the concealed nature of IPV and eforts to seek assistance (James et al., 2004; Lanier & Maume, 2009).

226

Shelly A. McGrath and Melencia Johnson

Cultural barriers Not only do rural victims live in geographic isolation from services and encounter difculty in accessing those services because of a lack of transportation, but there are also cultural barriers faced. Studies have shown that those living in rural areas tend to embody more conservative social and political norms that promote family loyalty and privacy, disciplinary violence, patriarchal attitudes and victim blaming (Grossman et al., 2005; McGrath et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2014). Within rural communities, research has shown that conservative religious values feed patriarchal and victim blaming attitudes (Houston-Kolnik  & Vasquez, 2017). Conservative religious philosophies foster and perpetuate traditional gender relations and male physical dominance in rural areas (Carrington et al., 2013), which may infuence male violence against women and resulting in a patriarchal ideology that discourages women from seeking victim services (Logan et al., 2004) or from leaving the abusive relationship (Bliss et al., 2006). These barriers may make it difcult for the individual to identify as a ‘victim’ who needs services. Even when self-identifying, they may experience a fear of not being believed that they did indeed experience victimisation. If there is a culture of denial of IPV (Ullman & Townsend, 2007), victims may not seek out services. Religious fundamentalism, characterised by a strict adherence to religious texts and principles, may increase the risk of IPV, with men who hold rigid conservative religious views more likely to abuse their partners (Ellison et al., 1999). A conservative religious ideology may also deter women from seeking services (Wendt, 2008; Winkelmann, 2004). Traditional gender roles that are followed by conservative religious people that dominate in many rural areas may also be a barrier in women seeking services (Carrington et al., 2013). The religious fundamental ideology encompasses family loyalty, patriarchal attitudes and traditional gender roles, punishing women who step outside of these boundaries and discouraging women from seeking victim services when they are abused (Logan et al., 2004). A culture of self-reliance in rural regions (see Comerford et al., 2004) also plays a role in deterring victims from seeking outside help. The ability to ‘do it yourself ’ is perpetuated in the reluctance to discuss personal problems with outsiders (Weisheit et al., 1999). Self-reliance is also demonstrated in rural areas in the form of gun ownership: Smith et al. (2014) report that gun ownership is strongly correlated with rurality and marriage. Owning a gun, in a United States context at least, is a symbol that one can ‘take care of their own’. If a potential ofender owns a frearm, this poses a threat not only to the would-be victim but also to those outside the family unit (Smucker et al., 2018). This can prevent victims from seeking external support due to the possible repercussions. Another cultural barrier indicative of rural areas is a lack of anonymity. Rural communities are characterised by low populations and population density. Consequently, such communities have small social networks that are knowledgeable about each other’s behaviours. This can be positive, but the lack of anonymity can also hinder a victim from seeking formal or informal services or support

The provision of support and advocacy for rural victims

227

because they may feel stigmatised (Houston-Kolnik & Vasquez, 2017). Eastman and Bunch (2007), as well as Websdale and Johnson (1998), found that the lack of anonymity makes rural women more hesitant to seek out medical and social services pertaining to IPV. Victims in rural areas can be familiar with local law enforcement because of close social networks. Rural victims of IPV have indicated that they choose not to call the police because their abuser had close personal connections with law enforcement and felt they would not be taken seriously (Websdale & Johnson, 1998). Living in a rural area reduces confdentiality for IPV victims, as everyone ‘knows your business’ (Logan et  al., 2004; Weisheit et  al., 1999). Ruback and Menard (2001) found that for rural victims of IPV, being seen in front of a victim service agency may be enough to bring the victim unwanted attention from their peers. These close-knit relationships are perceived to remove confdentiality safeguards as well (Teaster et al., 2006). The lack of anonymity is part of the socio-cultural isolation that victims encounter as a barrier to seeking services.

Individual barriers Not only do cultural barriers hinder victims of IPV from seeking out support services, but so too do individual barriers such as race, social class and educational attainment. These individual barriers and other social variables intersect with location to create diferent barriers to seeking help for victims in rural areas. Disadvantages associated with rural locales cannot be ignored as contributors to these barriers. This cumulative disadvantage impedes the availability and accessibility of support. This is especially true for women of colour and black women more specifcally (Grossman et  al., 2005). The data from a prior research study indicates that black families are disproportionately poorer than white families regardless of location (Horton et al., 1995). Grossman et al. (2005) have shown that rural black clients had a greater need for shelter or emergency housing, medical and physical assistance, as well as transportation compared to white clients. Black female victims have been perceived to need less emotional support (Grossman et al., 2005), possibly due to long standing stereotypes that black women are more assertive and confdent or do not measure up to the standards of a ‘good victim’ as weak and passive (Hall-Sanchez, 2016). Hispanic women, again in a United States context, face similar barriers to support services owing to systemic racism, and they may fear seeking services owing to anti-immigration sentiment (Becerra et  al. 2017), fear of deportation (Hing, 2018), language profciency (Ullman & Townsend, 2007; Robinson et al., 2020) and discrimination (Becerra et al., 2017). Immigrants are less likely to seek services because of the fear or assumption that the services would not be available in their primary language (Aefect, 2017, cited in Houston-Kolnik &Vasquez, 2017). Ullman and Townsend (2007) addressed the infuence of racism and its impact on services provided to clients. They note that racism reduces the quality of services and the geographic distribution of services. Ullman and Townsend (2007) noted that

228

Shelly A. McGrath and Melencia Johnson

if victims perceive a formal service provider to be racist, not supportive of people of colour or unable to identify with the victim, this may be a barrier to seek and obtain support. A lack of knowledge or education about victim services is another barrier for seeking services. Many in rural areas have not been educated as to how or where to seek services for victimisation (Houston-Kolnik & Vasquez, 2017). Many may not know that social services are ofered at no cost (Ullman & Townsend, 2007). For those who may know about the services, there is the assumption that they may not qualify for the services ofered because of income or other factors. All of these barriers negatively impact victims’ ability to obtain support and services.

Role of victim advocates in rural communities and the challenges they face Victims of crime have guaranteed rights granted by federal and state governments in the United States. While these rights vary across states and jurisdictions, they commonly include “access to information about criminal proceedings, protection, possible compensation and/or restitution, and dignifed treatment by the justice system” (Gillespie et al., 2019, p. 2). Victim advocates (also called victim service providers or simply advocates) exist within criminal legal system organisations, non-government organisations, hospitals, battered women’s shelters and rape crisis centres. Victim advocates can help improve interactions between victims and law enforcement, provide referrals to social services and increase victims’ perceptions of control. Globokar and Erez (2019) report that most advocates did not actively pursue their current career, but ‘fell’ into it while working in adjacent felds. Advocate roles vary greatly in terms of expectations, salary, autonomy and level of training provided (Globokar & Erez, 2019). Studies have indicated that victim advocacy in rural domains is qualitatively diferent from urban domains (Eastman & Bunch, 2007; Gillespie et al., 2019; McGrath et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2014; Yun et al., 2009). Two additional points about the role of victim advocates in rural communities are important to note: (i) advocacy and criminal justice work are gendered; and (ii) the social context (that is, the rural environment) greatly impacts the work. Research indicates that the experiences of advocates who work with victims of intimate violence in rural areas face challenges and problems that are unique to rural areas (Logan et al., 2004; McGrath et al., 2012; Websdale, 1998). Despite this, how and why ‘ruralness’ and rural culture (such as low population density, patriarchal attitudes and so on) complicate victim advocacy has not been adequately explored (McGrath et al., 2012; van Hightower & Gorton, 2002).

Ecological factors afecting advocacy work Based on the work of McGrath et al. (2012) and Johnson et al. (2014), an ecological framework can shed light on rural barriers to efective advocacy in rural

The provision of support and advocacy for rural victims

229

domains. Rural victim advocates recognise the presence of signifcant macro-, exoand micro-system factors in their communities and experience them as creating greater challenges to their work. The macro-system is the broadest system at the cultural and subcultural level. Patriarchal attitudes, religious fundamentalism, lack of personal privacy and acceptance of victim blaming are prominent barriers at this level. Advocates must often confront patriarchal perspectives (Logan et al., 2004) or religious ideology (NasonClark, 2004) to provide efective advocacy in these rural belief structures, especially if the victim believes their abuse is justifed. Dunn and Powell (2005) found from their sample that the majority of advocates from working in rural areas cited ‘old-fashioned ideologies’ as a major barrier to service provision. Because rurality reduces the level of confdentiality for victims, advocates must question how they can help their clients achieve safety or change without simultaneously ‘outing’ their clients in the public domain (see Logan et al., 2004; Ruback & Menard, 2001). The exo-system refects institutions, organisations and agencies that afect and are afected by the individual. Problems at the exo-system level can infuence the efectiveness of the client/advocate relationship. Job stress, underemployment and lack of social support systems create barriers for efective rural advocacy. PowellWilliams et  al. (2013) note that victim service workers are at a high risk from burnout and vicarious trauma from clients’ reluctance to leave abusive relationships. Organisational afliations are also an important part of efective advocacy. Advocates develop formal and informal collaborations with other support and social services providers to meet their clients’ needs. The micro-system of the ecology of rural victim advocacy focuses on the relationships victim advocates have that facilitate or hinder efective advocacy. Rural advocates’ relationships with clients, colleagues, law enforcement and court personnel help them to manage their clients and are key to the success of a variety of advocacy strategies. Their relationships with their clients, social service and criminal justice personnel are symbiotic. In rural areas, these relationships may be accented by increased care work (direct or indirect time supporting clients through providing education, funds, transportation, etc.) and prior knowledge of the victim, criminal justice personnel and/or perpetrators due to low population. These relationships help to “shield against the values of the macrosystem” and provide “a voice to exosystem agents” (Johnson et al., 2014, p. 2203). The challenges to efective advocacy and the tools advocates use to create opportunities to do their work successfully vary in each rural locale.

Essentials for efective advocacy in rural domains While not all rural agencies have the same barriers to efective advocacy, studies suggest that some are more disadvantaged than others in regard to service needs and provisions. IPV programs in rural areas typically have fewer services, less funding and fewer formally trained staf (Eastman & Bunch, 2007). In order for rural advocacy

230

Shelly A. McGrath and Melencia Johnson

to be efective, it must provide community education, improve accessibility of services, build capacity within the agency and increase the amount and consistency of funding. One way for advocates to be more efective would be to increase their fexibility to provide care. This could be achieved by having more consistent access to vehicles to reach outlying areas of a community rather than waiting for a victim to travel to their location. This would help to decrease the social and geographic isolation of advocates in large counties. Organisations should consider innovative possibilities for alleviating barriers associated with rural domains. Community education related to violence and support services would help connect more rural victims to advocates and services (Grossman et al., 2005). These educational resources need to be inclusive by race, sexuality, age and ability, and should be delivered in various formats to aid accessibility. Advertising of resources beyond the police is important, particularly for communities that have negative attitudes and a lack of trust in law enforcement. Advocates also need to expand the focus of IPV support from “able-bodied, cisgender, and heterosexual women” to recognise relatively marginalised groups (Alvarez-Hernandez et al., 2021). Victim service agencies should build capacity within agencies by providing more staf, fexible funding and consistent referral networks (Houston-Kolnik & Vasquez, 2017). The ability to assist clients depends on adequate stafng, funding and staf education and training. Rural providers have been shown to have fewer opportunities for training and education as it relates to their position (Yun et al., 2009). Increased training of providers, especially frst responders, about laws regarding victimisation, how to identify victimisation and mechanisms for providing proper referrals to services would increase rural advocacy. This is important because frst responders can be considered ‘the outsider’ with the ability to identify the individual as a victim and connect them to further support. Their positive or negative afect will impact further help-seeking by that individual (Houston-Kolnik & Vasquez, 2017). The need for increased and consistent funding is a constant clarion call from rural victim service providers (Eastman & Bunch, 2007; McGrath et al., 2012). Barriers related to funding include staf turnover, struggles with volunteer recruitment, the ability to provide adequate services and to do community outreach (Gillespie et al., 2019). Yun et al. (2009) showed that rural programs receive less consistent funding and fewer grants from state and federal sources in the United States. It is important to note that most studies regarding rural victim advocacy barriers and barriers to victim services include small sample sizes, are cross-sectional and may not be representative of all rural areas. Rural crime, victimisation and advocacy rank among the least studied social problems (Hall-Sanchez, 2016): thus, more research using nationally and internationally representative data and critical perspectives that reveal the complexities of rurality are needed. Qualitative and quantitative studies alike show that advocates are aware of the barriers to service provision and access and know what services are needed to better provide for their county/area. Rural advocates are a considerably understudied group, ripe for research and policy recommendations.

The provision of support and advocacy for rural victims

231

Alternative mechanisms for ofsetting barriers The individual, cultural and socio-demographic challenges that rural areas face have been well documented (Johnson et  al., 2014; McGrath et  al., 2012; Websdale, 1998). A  need for alternative mechanisms for support are essential, as the current methods have not yet eradicated the challenges that rural advocates and victims encounter. Emphasis has been placed on formal networks of advocates and resources. However, as Coohey (2007) has highlighted, informal networks should be focused on in the rural environment, as battered women are more likely to seek help from friends or family than from formal advocates and agencies. Informal networks can help victims access resources and hold the abuser accountable (Lanier & Maume, 2009). One idea that advocates within the rural environment could use to alleviate the challenges of their jobs would be to educate the entire community about the issues surrounding IPV. Building a network of informal advocates that are within the social networks of abuse victims in the community may help advocates identify those who need their help, including victims who need help but are not sure how to go about getting it. Advocates could identify individuals in the community who are passionate about violence against women and recruit them into an informal advocate network. These individuals could then be trained to work as an advocate without having an actual job in the feld. Areas throughout the United States are full of informal animal rights individuals who help neglected and abused animals without actually being a formal advocate with a position in a formal agency. The IPV model could replicate the grassroots model of animal rights advocates to reduce the barriers for victims of IPV as well as increasing efective advocacy. Victim advocates could then rely on informal advocates to gain the trust of the victim, breaking some of the barriers that they face when working with the victims. Since the atmosphere in rural areas is to ‘take care of one’s own’ and that of self-reliance, this strategy could break that thinking by letting victims informally talk about their situations and the needs they have before entering the formal system. This could help in identifying victims and connecting them into the formal system for their other needs to be met. If informal advocates are trained and given information on all of the services available to battered women, victims could access the services they need without having to go through formal networks. The informal advocates could then keep the formal advocates abreast of any clients that require assistance. The scarcity of intervention resources can also hinder help-seeking behaviour in IPV situations (Peek-Asa et  al., 2011). Creating a network of informal advocates could increase intervention resources, as they would be another source of support within each community instead of the formal advocates who tend to be geographically spread out. The lack of public transportation in rural areas (McGrath et al., 2012), along with the tyranny of physical distance (Peek-Asa et  al., 2011) to services, makes accessing services more difcult for victims and makes advocates’ work more diffcult. Many victims do not have access to their own vehicle; public transportation

232

Shelly A. McGrath and Melencia Johnson

is scarce, and the distances to the services are too far to walk. Even if public transportation is available, rural victims may be unable to aford to utilise it. To alleviate this barrier, informal advocates could be used to transport victims to and from services. The formal advocates could then reimburse informal advocates for travel costs, granted they have the resources to do so. Another way to tackle this barrier would be to create a car share program. An informal advocate could have access to a vehicle that would be shared with those in need, enabling them to get to medical services, court dates, job training programs and so on. Advocates would subsequently not have to spend so much time transporting their clients or trying to fnd available transportation for their clients. Another possible alternative would be to utilise the police for transportation, though some victims may not be receptive to this idea as they do not feel comfortable travelling with police, particularly ethnic minority and First Nations women. Police in a local area, whether in urban or rural areas, could transport victims to and from services. The police are not only in the community to protect it from crime, but also to help the community. Allowing the police to provide transportation or having a community transportation system would also tackle the issue of poverty. Many victims cannot seek out help because they do not have the monetary resources to do so. However, this type of assistance may not be perceived to be an appropriate use of police time or resources by police departments or taxpayers due to views of police work as law enforcement and not social service-related tasks.

Policy changes and implications Considering various options for reform, diferent policies at the local, state or province and national level can be implemented to help victims and advocates in rural areas. The following is a series of proposals which could well be applied to various international jurisdictions, as well as in the United States. A ‘one size fts all’ approach to intimate partner violence policy will not work for all rural areas because of the diferent barriers rural women face when compared with women in urban and suburban geographic settings. Policies should decentralise services to ensure rural women have better access to them. Well-trained advocates and practitioners should be deployed to rural areas so that victims of IPV can have ready access to them. Rural areas often lack the resources needed to provide adequate support, and many are losing resources that they do have. When hospitals close or when services are downgraded in rural areas, victims of IPV are left without necessary medical care. Elected representatives should prioritise rural healthcare provision. Funding policies at each political tier could target rural hospitals to ensure their survival and give residents of these areas a medical facility that is easier to access. Another policy reform would be to train police, advocates and medical professionals to identify IPV victims more efectively. These professionals, at the least, should be given training in rapid screening of IPV to identify victims. Mandating that frst responders such as police, medical and mental health professionals receive training in rapid screening of IPV may help identify victims. This would allow for

The provision of support and advocacy for rural victims

233

a victim to be referred to formal advocates and then receive necessary services. By training others in IPV screening, advocates would then be able to create a formal workgroup to aid in identifying possible victims. Policy makers at all levels should also consult the expert insights of service providers and advocates from rural areas in formulating the services available for IPV to ensure that victims are receiving what they need. Advocates who work with IPV victims, along with police and medical professions who have contact with these victims, are best placed to advise on the needs of rural victims and communities better than ofcials who decide funding and program implementation. A re-examination of current policies to understand if they are best suited for rural communities is essential. The prevention and intervention strategies used in urban or suburban areas may not be well suited for rural areas. Allowing researchers to work with the advocates and others in rural areas would encourage data-driven policies to be implemented. Funding for this type of research should be provided through state and federal government agencies. Having IPV services work with researchers could help advocates customise the types of services they use to help victims and better understand how to overcome the cultural barriers inherent in rural advocacy work. Regarding the cultural barriers that advocates face while helping victims of interpersonal violence, implementing primary prevention programs in schools on respectful relationships to challenge patriarchal attitudes that are deeply entrenched in some communities may be a policy that could be implemented to infuence generational change. Targeting middle and upper-level school students to educate them about IPV and the support resources that are available could be used to improve the knowledge of the available resources to encourage victims’ help seeking behaviours. A course in school could be implemented to teach students about the warning signs of IPV and what to do when someone needs help escaping an abusive relationship. Local schools could hire advocates, counsellors or medical professionals who are trained in identifying the signs of IPV. Young people can be taught about the signs of abuse, including violence as coercive control, gaslighting and fnancial abuse as well as learning that economic independence increases one’s ability to leave an abusive situation. Prevention at the younger ages should be the focus of local government and schools.

Conclusion The need for increased and consistent funding seems to be constant among rural victim service providers (Eastman & Bunch, 2007; McGrath al., 2012). Many of the reforms and policies suggested here must have fnancial support to be efective. Government at all levels should re-evaluate their policies to determine if resources are being directed most efectively to programs that can help both the victims of IPV and the advocates who support them. Reallocating resources to diferent types of programs or services may be in order. Educating young people about the signs of IPV and available resources for victims may reduce the risk of victimisation,

234

Shelly A. McGrath and Melencia Johnson

and if they become a victim, may enable them to know where they can seek help. Addressing IPV in rural communities is complex and demands a multifaceted approach to be most benefcial.

References Alvarez-Hernandez, L. R., Cardenas, I., & Bloom, A. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic and intimate partner violence: An analysis of help-seeking messages in the Spanish-speaking media. Journal of Family Violence, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-021-00263-8 Becerra, W., Wagaman, M. A., Androf, D., Messing, J., & Castillo, J. (2017). Policing immigrants: Fear of deportations and perceptions of law enforcement and criminal justice. Journal of Social Work, 17(6), 715–731. Bliss, M. J., Cook, S. L., & Kaslow, N. J. (2006). An ecological approach to understanding incarcerated women’s responses to abuse. Women and Therapy, 29(3), 97–115. Boserup, B., McKenney, M., & Elkbuli, A. (2020). Alarming trends in US domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 38(12), 1–3. Carrington, K., McIntosh, A., Hogg, R., & Scott, J. (2013). Rural masculinities and the internalization of violence in rural communities. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 2(1), 3–24. Comerford, S. A., Henson-Stroud, M. M., Sionainn, S.,  & Wheeler, E. (2004). Crone songs: Voices of lesbian elders on aging in a rural environment. Aflia, 19(4), 418–436. Coohey, C. (2007). The relationship between mothers’ social networks and severe domestic violence: A test of the social isolation hypothesis. Violence Victims, 22(4), 503–512. DeKeseredy, W. S. (2021). Woman abuse in rural places. London: Routledge. Delta Regional Authority. (2015). Today’s Delta: A  Research Tool for the Region. The Delta Regional Authority. Retrieved from https://dra.gov/images/uploads/content_fles/ Todays_Delta_FINAL_print-w-borders.pdf Donnelly, D. A., Cook, K. J., & Wilson, L. A. (1999). Provision and exclusion: The dual face of services to battered women in three deep south states. Violence against Women, 5(7), 710–741. Dunn, J. L., & Powell, M. (2005). “Where they are at”: Domestic violence victim advocacy and the social construction of agency. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Sociological Society, Minneapolis, MN. Eastman, B. J., & Bunch, S. G. (2007). Providing services to survivors of domestic violence: A  comparison of rural and urban service provider perceptions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(4), 465–473. Ellison, C. G., Bartkowski, J. P., & Anderson, K. L. (1999). Are there religious variations in domestic violence? Journal of Family Issues, 20(1), 87–113. Gillespie, L. K., King, L. L., Bostaph, L. G., & Goodson, A. (2019). Crime victim service providers’ needs and barriers: Rurality and “High Need”. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(15–16), 1–24. Globokar, J., & Erez, E. (2019). Conscience and convenience: American victim work in organizational context. International Review of Victimology, 25(3), 341–357. Grossman, S. F., Hinkley, S., Kawalski, A.,  & Margrave, C. (2005). Rural versus urban victims of violence: The interplay of race and region. Journal of Family Violence, 20(2), 71–81. Hall-Sanchez, A. (2016). Intimate violence against rural women: The current and future state of feminist empirical and theoretical contributions. Sociology Compass, 10(4), 272–283.

The provision of support and advocacy for rural victims

235

Hing, B. (2018). Entering the Trump ice age: Contextualizing the new immigration enforcement regime. Texas A&M Law Review, 5(2), 253–322. Horton, H. D., Thomas, M. E., & Herring, C. (1995). Rural-urban diferences in Black family structure. Journal of Family Issues, 16(3), 298–313. Houston-Kolnik, J.,  & Vasquez, A. L. (2017). Victim service delivery: Illinois providers’ perspectives on victim service barriers and agency capacity. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. James S. E., Johnson J.,  & Raghavan C. (2004). “I  couldn’t go anywhere”: Contextualizing violence and drug abuse: A  social network study. Violence against Women, 10(9), 991–1014. Johnson, M., McGrath, S. A., & Miller, M. H. (2014). Efective advocacy in rural domains. Interpersonal Violence, 29(12), 2192–2217. Lanier C., & Maume, M. O. (2009). Intimate partner violence and social isolation across the rural/urban divide. Violence against Women, 15(11), 1311–1330. Logan, T. K., Shannon, L., & Walker, R. (2005). Protective orders in rural and urban areas: A multiple perspective study. Violence against Women, 11(7), 876–911. Logan, T. K., Stevenson, E., Evans, L., & Leukefeld, C. (2004). Rural and urban women’s perceptions of barriers to health, mental health, and criminal justice services: Implications for victim services. Violence and Victims, 19(1), 37–62. Logan, T. K., Walker, R., Cole, J., Ratlif, S., & Leukefeld, C. (2003). Qualitative diferences among rural and urban intimate violence victimization experiences and consequences: A pilot study. Journal of Family Violence, 18(2), 83–92. McGrath, S. A., Johnson, M.,  & Miller, M. H. (2012). The social ecological challenges of rural victim advocacy: An exploratory study. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(5), 588–606. Nason-Clark, N. (2004). When terror strikes at home: The interface between religion and domestic violence. Journal for the Scientifc Study of Religion, 43(3), 303–310. Peek-Asa, C., Wallis, A., Harland, K., Beyer, K., Dickey, P., & Saftlas, A. (2011). Rural disparity in domestic violence prevalence and resources. Journal of Women’s Health, 20(11), 1743–1749. Powell-Williams, M., White, S. D., & Powell-Williams, T. (2013). “I help the ones that want help”: Emotion work and the victim advocate role. Sociological Spectrum, 33(3), 258–275. Robinson, S. R., Ravi, K., & Voth Schrag, R. J. (2020). A systematic review of barriers to formal help seeking for adult survivors of IPV in the United States, 2005–2019. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 22(5), 1279–1295. Ruback, A. B., & Menard, K. S. (2001). Rural-urban diferences in sexual victimization and reporting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(2), 131–155. Smith, T. W., Son J., & Laken F. (2014). Gun ownership in the United States: Measurement issues and trends. Chicago, IL: NORC. Smucker, S., Kerber, R. E., & Cook, P. J. (2018). Suicide and additional homicides associated with intimate partner homicide: North Carolina 2004–2013. Journal of Urban Health, 95(3), 337–343. Teaster, P., Roberto, K., & Dugar, T. A. (2006). Intimate partner violence of rural aging women. Family Relations, 55(5), 636–648. Ullman, S. E., & Townsend, S. M. (2007). Barriers to working with sexual assault survivors: A qualitative study of rape crisis center workers. Violence against Women, 13(4), 412–443. Van Hightower, N. R., & Gorton, J. (2002). A case study of community-based responses to rural women battering. Violence against Women, 8(7), 845–872. Websdale, N. (1998). Rural woman battering and the justice system: An ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

236

Shelly A. McGrath and Melencia Johnson

Websdale, N., & Johnson, B. (1998). An ethnostatistical comparison of the forms and levels of woman battering in urban and rural areas of Kentucky. Criminal Justice Review, 23(2), 161–196. Weisheit, R. A., Falcone, D. N., & Wells, L. E. (1999). Crime and policing in rural and smalltown America (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Wendt, S. (2008). Christianity and domestic violence: Feminist poststructuralist perspectives. Aflia, 23(2), 144–155. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Winkelmann, C. L. (2004). The language of battered women: A  rhetorical analysis of personal theologies. New York: SUNY. Yun, I., Swindell, S., & Kercher, G. (2009). Victim services delivery: A comparison of rural and urban communities. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 6(2), 145–162.

CASE STUDY Victim advocacy in the Delta Region of the United States

The Delta Region of the United States encompasses 252 counties and parishes in eight diferent states: Alabama; Arkansas; Illinois; Kentucky; Louisiana; Mississippi; Missouri; and Tennessee (Delta Regional Authority, 2015). The Delta Region difers from other parts of the country on population characteristics, educational attainment, poverty, health, income and employment.

Demographics Compared with the United States as a whole, the Delta Region has a much lower population density of 64.9 persons per square mile (2.59 square kilometers) compared to 89.5. The Delta region also has a substantially higher proportion of minorities residing in the area compared to the national average. Over 32 percent of the residents in the region are black (compared to being only 13.2% of the total United States population). The population in the region has a higher percentage of individuals 25  years old and older who have obtained a high school diploma or GED (a graduate equivalency degree is for individuals who do not fnish high school but need the equivalency to continue on in post-secondary education), but have a lower percentage of individuals obtaining at least an Associate’s degree or higher. 43.5 percent of children live in single parent families compared to 32.9 percent nationally. Within the region, 20.6 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, while nationally only 14.9  percent are below the poverty line. Children in the region fare much worse compared to the national average: almost 30 percent of all the children under age 18 live in poverty; for the nation, under 21 percent of children live in poverty. Diferences between the Delta Region and the rest of the country can also be seen in the health disparities. Almost 35 percent of residents in the Delta Region

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-31

238

Shelly A. McGrath and Melencia Johnson

are obese compared to 27.4 percent for the country. Individuals within the Delta Region (18.3%) do not have any health insurance. As for income, Delta Region households have an average of USD$40,427 per year, which is over USD$12,000 less than the average for the country. The region has an unemployment rate of eight percent and over 23 percent of the residents rely on income support programs (Delta Regional Authority, 2015). The Delta Region has unique disadvantages that it faces compared with the rest of the country. The disadvantages that are found here can impact the ability for interpersonal violence advocates to be efective in their role.

The efect of challenges in the Delta Region Efective domestic violence victim advocacy in the Mississippi Delta Region encounters multiple challenges, owing to the geographic and demographic characteristics of the area. Advocates face the barriers of isolation, poverty, lack of fnancial resources, a less educated population and health issues that afect those who need their services. In interviews with advocates from the Delta Region, McGrath et al. (2012) found that advocates believed that the rural environment, high unemployment and high poverty were major demographic barriers to serving victims of domestic violence. The advocates were asked to report how accurately each characteristic describes the environment that they worked and served in. The answers were coded in a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 10, with 1 being not at all true and 10 being very true. If the advocate answered from 7 to 10, they were asked a follow up question about how much harder that characteristic made working with clients. These questions also ranged from 1 to 10, with 1 indicating not at all harder and 10 much harder. In this study, 84 percent of advocates felt that living in a rural community made their jobs much harder and 72 percent indicated that high unemployment made their jobs harder. Poverty was perceived by the advocates as the most difcult challenge to work with. Several advocates indicated that poverty increased the likelihood of victims returning to their batterers, making it more difcult for the advocates to utilise law enforcement for those individuals in subsequent interactions. The cultural characteristics present in rural areas are also present in the Delta region. Many of the respondents in the McGrath et al. (2012) study agreed that a lack of privacy, victim-blaming attitudes and the perspective that people should take care of their own problems made advocating much more difcult. Of the sample of advocates, 88  percent believed that the lack of privacy for the client made their jobs much more difcult. Advocates in this region also reported that traditional beliefs about sex roles and marriage and religious fundamentalism were somewhat/mostly true in about the area that they served. Advocates who answered somewhat/mostly true thought that the attitudes were present in community more than they were absent. The combination of victim-blaming and these cultural factors make the advocate’s ability to perform their job increasingly challenging. McGrath et al (2012)

The provision of support and advocacy for rural victims

239

found that victim-blaming was positively correlated with the lack of knowledge of services. Many of the individuals that live in the rural areas were not aware that the services for victims existed. Advocates found that those who blamed the victim were less aware about the services available for victims of intimate partner violence. Rural areas are also known for having the attitude that home troubles are private matters and individuals should not seek out help for interpersonal violence issues (McGrath et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2014). This ideology hinders the advocates’ ability to help victims because of the community pressure for the victim to avoid engaging with the criminal justice system (Johnson et al., 2014). Available resources – or rather, lack thereof – made advocacy in the Delta Region much more difcult in the advocates’ view. The lack of public transportation and substance abuse services were two of the characteristics of the Delta Region that advocates felt were very problematic. They also indicated that a lack of afordable housing, job-training opportunities and afordable childcare made their jobs as advocates much more difcult (McGrath et al., 2012). Lack of public transportation and lack of afordable childcare were answered as mostly or very true statements across the majority of the domestic violence advocates. In these rural areas, public transportation is not only lacking but is almost nonexistent. Transportation is a very important issue for the advocates since it permeates just about every aspect of their job. Clients who do not have transportation of their own would need public transportation for meeting with the advocate, attending court hearings and any services they may receive (such as medical appointments, job interviews and so on). The lack of transportation for the clients makes the advocates’ job much harder, because even if they can secure the services the client needs, they may not be able to get the client to those services (McGrath et al., 2012). A small percentage of the advocates indicated that a lack of substance abuse services made their work much harder. This was found to reduce the advocates’ ability to help the victims escape because either the victim needed the abuser to transport them to the service or the victim was transporting their abuser to the service. The victims were found by advocates to want to help their abuser get the services they needed. One advocate noted that there were a lot of social service agencies but many did not have the resources to help victims. Many of the advocates also made note that there was inadequate police protection (McGrath et al., 2012). Often, the police do not provide adequate protection for the victim and may even defend the abuser. One advocate discussed how the chief of police came to her to get an order of protection lifted because the abuser was a “hard-working man” who sometimes had violent tendencies. The intersection of the demographic barriers, cultural barriers and a lack of resources is what makes advocacy more challenging in rural areas. The advocates’ viewed inadequate policing as a characteristic of the rural area that makes their jobs much more difcult, but it is nested within other challenges such as unemployment, victim blaming, belief in traditional sex roles and fundamentalism. The lack of educational opportunities for victims is situated within other challenges, such

240

Shelly A. McGrath and Melencia Johnson

as victim blaming and taking care of one’s own problems (McGrath et al., 2012). Lack of educational opportunities is situated within victim blaming attitudes and the attitude of taking care of one’s own, in that those who are in those communities do not have access to educational opportunities. The culture does not believe education is a priority and women should follow the gender norms of getting married and having children. Many of the women in the area do not even graduate from high school. The lack of educational opportunities makes it very difcult to escape an abuser. The advocates’ ability to help victims is not just based on the relationship between the advocate and the victim but is dependent upon other individuals and their attitudes, lack of resources and cultural expectations all of which are specifc to place. While these issues are important for all areas, these challenges are undoubtedly amplifed in rural areas.

References Delta Regional Authority. (2015). Today’s Delta: A  Research Tool for the Region. The Delta Regional Authority. Retrieved from https://dra.gov/images/uploads/content_fles/ Todays_Delta_FINAL_print-w-borders.pdf Johnson, M., McGrath, S. A., & Miller, M. H. (2014). Efective advocacy in rural domains: Applying an ecological model to understanding advocates’ relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(12), 2192–2217. McGrath, S. A., Johnson, M.,  & Miller, M. H. (2012). The social ecological challenges of rural victim advocacy: An exploratory study. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(5), 588–606.

17 COMMUNITY-LEVEL RESPONSES TO RURAL VICTIMISATION Tarah Hodgkinson

Many rural and remote communities across the globe experience higher rates of crime and victimisation than their urban counterparts (Hogg & Carrington, 2006). This is especially true in both Australia and Canada, where rural areas have some of the highest crime rates in the country (Barclay, 2017; Perrault, 2019). Despite these signifcant diferences, there is a lack of research explaining why this is occurring. Perhaps more importantly for the residents of these communities is the relative lack of research on what to do about crime and victimisation in rural settings (see Harkness, 2020 for an exception). Preventing crime and victimisation in rural areas can be difcult. Rural areas face unique challenges, such as high rates of domestic violence, assault, drug and alcohol use and theft of items often required to sustain communities, such as farm equipment and livestock (Hodgkinson & Harris, 2021; Edwards & Donnermeyer, 2002; Barclay, 2016). In addition, the kinds of social and psychological support services available in urban areas are often underfunded or non-existent in the rural setting (WHO, 2018). If prevention eforts exist, they are usually led by police, who are already overwhelmed by policing large geographical areas alone or with little support (Donnermeyer et al., 2016). Furthermore, the kinds of technological prevention tools frequently associated with situational crime prevention (locks, alarms, tracking technologies) are expensive and unavailable to many rural residents (Harkness, 2017). There are some examples of where prevention strategies are being done efectively in rural communities. These include Communities that Care in Australia, a wrap-around program for youth that has demonstrated success in reducing youthrelated ofending (Fagan et al., 2018), and the Midwestern Prevention project in the United States that signifcantly reduced drug use in youth between the ages of 10 to 14 (Chou et al., 1998). But what about when an entire community has been victimised by high crime and disorder? How do residents come together to address

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-32

242

Tarah Hodgkinson

this injustice and take back control of their communities? How do they heal and move forward? This chapter explores some of the potential practical solutions for crime and victimisation that address local contexts. In particular, it examines whether an action-based methodology, called SafeGrowth (a registered propriety product), could provide a way forward for connecting rural victims and stakeholders around crime and victimisation and build capacity for addressing these issues at the local level. It draws upon two case studies: North Battleford in Saskatchewan, Canada, and Roma in Queensland, Australia.

Crime and victimisation in rural areas Rural communities face unique crime and victimisation issues. These challenges are largely overlooked in the literature. For example, farmers in rural areas struggle to protect their livestock and equipment against theft when both are spread out over several kilometres of land (Barclay, 2016). This can result in signifcant losses to livelihoods in these areas. Small fy-in, fy-out communities, or growing boomtowns, often attract numerous male workers who, with little else to do, engage in high rates of alcohol and drug related violence and domestic abuse (Carrington et al., 2012; Markey, 2010). Several studies have demonstrated that rates of domestic violence and intimate partner related sexual assault are higher in some rural areas in Australia and the United States (Hodgkinson & Harris, 2021; Rennison et al., 2013). In addition, there is often a signifcant lack of resources for these victims in rural and remote areas (Coverdale, 2011). Furthermore, some newcomers and Indigenous peoples in rural communities experience higher rates of hate crime and structural victimisation, including access to basic needs such as clean water (Lumsden et al., 2019; Mascarenhas, 2007). Finally, but not exhaustively, improvements in technology have created opportunities for fraud and cybercrime around the world, including rural communities (Ceccato, 2016). The two rural communities included in this chapter also face their own unique challenges. Roma has a population of approximately 6,800 people. It is located approximately 500 kilometres (310 miles) west of Brisbane, the capital of Queensland. It has a crime rate approximately three times that of Brisbane. For example, using Queensland Police Service’s (QPS) online open data, in 2019,1 Roma had a crime rate of 12,879 incidents per 100,000 persons. Conversely, Brisbane had a crime rate of 4,753 incidents per 100,000 persons according to the same data. This is not inconsistent for other small communities across Queensland. For example, Goondiwindi has a crime rate of 10,495 per 100,000 persons, and Warwick has a crime rate of 11,003 per 100,000 persons. However, it does demonstrate that Roma has one of the higher crime rates for rural communities in Queensland. Youth crime is of particular concern within Roma. Rates of youth ofending have almost doubled between 2010 and 2020 (to approximately 21% of all ofending), and over 75 percent of this ofending is property crime related (Hodgkinson,

Community-level responses to rural victimisation

243

2021a). Furthermore, while there is an average of 60 unique young ofenders per year in Roma between 2010 and 2020, only ten of these ofenders account for 50 percent or more of young ofending in the community (Hodgkinson, 2021a). This suggests that a small number of young ofenders are responsible for a signifcant amount of young ofending (Wolfgang et al., 1987) in Roma. North Battleford has a population of 14,000 people and is located 135 kilometres (84 miles) north-west of the closest urban centre, Saskatoon. It has a population density of approximately 414 people per square kilometre (Statistics Canada, 2016). It has held the highest Crime Severity Index (CSI) in Canada for ten years (Markusof, 2017). The CSI is designed to measure change in the severity of crimes in Canada each year. Each crime type is weighted based on their level of seriousness. For example, homicide is rated higher than petty theft (Statistics Canada, 2019). The total of these weights for each community is then divided by their population. In 2018, the CSI for North Battleford was 372 (crime rate of 39,053 incidents per 100,000 people). By comparison, the CSI for Canada, overall, was 75 (crime rate of 5,488 incidents per 100,000 people) (Statistics Canada, 2019). Small communities in Canada, such as North Battleford, often have higher CSIs as a result of low population size. In fact, Hodgkinson (2021b) found that when comparing crime rates and the CSI with the location quotient (a measure of crime specialisation), North Battleford did not particularly specialise in violent crime. For example, North Battleford has one of the lowest homicide rates in the country, with only fve recorded homicides since 1998 (Statistics Canada, 2019). Rather, the CSI was predominantly driven by mischief (in Canada this refers to damage or destruction of property). This demonstrates the importance of thoroughly exploring crime and victimisation data prior to engaging in any prevention eforts. However, there are still crime and victimisation concerns that face North Battleford. North Battleford’s crime concerns seem to be driven by a few major issues. These include break and enters, impaired driving, youth crime and assault (Statistics Canada, 2019; Hodgkinson, 2019). There is also a signifcant amount of homelessness and social disorder in the downtown area, as individuals commute in from surrounding areas to access services and then are often unable to fnd adequate transportation to return home. This can result in some people spending several days in North Battleford, without supports or shelter (Hodgkinson et al., 2020). Finally, because of the ongoing stigma of being labelled ‘Canada’s Crime Capital’, local municipal staf have felt increasing pressure to address crime and safety in the community.

Preventing crime and victimisation in rural communities Crime prevention has focused almost exclusively on urban settings (Hodgkinson & Harkness, 2020). While there is some evidence of what works in preventing youth crime in these rural areas (Spoth, 2007; Feinberg et al., 2007), there is little evidence on what works to prevent other types of crime and victimisation (Bell & Hall, 2007). Furthermore, as discussed previously, rural criminological research

244

Tarah Hodgkinson

demonstrates that rural areas experience crime and victimisation diferently than their urban counterparts. One of the common ways to approach crime prevention is through addressing predictors of crime and victimisation. However, the predictors of urban and rural crime can difer (Barclay et al., 2007). For example, poverty concentration is not signifcantly correlated with crime rates in rural settings (Deller & Deller, 2010). Additionally, typical protective factors, such as social cohesion, where there are strong social connections amongst local residents, behave inconsistently in studies on the rural context (Chilenski et al., 2015). While rural communities are romanticised as places of cohesion and safety, these areas are not isolated from larger policy and governmental decisions that afect integration and subsequently, crime prevention strategies (Ceccato, 2016). As a result, there is a lack of criminological theory and crime prevention strategies tailored to the needs of rural communities and even less research on the efectiveness of these strategies (Kaylen & Pridemore, 2013; Ceccato & Dolmen, 2013). While the research on preventing crime and victimisation is not extensive in the rural context, there is a growing body of evidence (Harkness, 2020). Indeed, these studies are fnding that integrated and contextually based approaches – that can be broadly applied – are often quite efective. Numerous integrated approaches exist in the urban research: the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit; Ceasefre; the Winnipeg Auto-theft Strategy in Canada; the Kirkholt (United Kingdom) Neighbourhood Watch; and more (Violence Reduction Unit, 2011; Skogan et al., 2009; Manitoba Auto Theft Task Force, 2009; Forrester et al., 1988) that continuously show efectiveness (Hodgkinson & Farrell, 2018). However, there is far less evidence of this work in rural contexts. Nonetheless, approaches that work directly with stakeholders and residents to build local capacity and collective efcacy have been shown to be efective in reducing crime and victimisation regardless of geographical context (Saville, 2009; Fagan et al., 2018). Some of this research uses an action-research methodology called SafeGrowth to build local interest, develop local capacity and knowledge and co-create crime prevention strategies with residents and victims of crime. This methodology has been implemented in rural communities in Canada (North Battleford, Saskatchewan) and Australia (Roma, Queensland).

SafeGrowth Developed in 2007 by Gregory Saville, SafeGrowth is a methodology and philosophy for building local capacity to address issues of crime and victimisation through social and neighbourhood development. Four main principles underlie SafeGrowth: (i) action-based practice; (ii) social ecology; (iii) neighbourhood activation; and (iv) socio-technical systems (Saville, 2018). Action-based practice involves direct participation and building the capacity of local residents and stakeholders. This is done through training about key crime prevention and community development concepts using problem-based

Community-level responses to rural victimisation

245

learning strategies and action research principles. Social ecology focuses on building small and functional neighbourhoods in which residents are connected and work together to overcome problems. Neighbourhood activation involves building neighbourhood-level partnerships and organisations that co-plan and co-develop solutions to their own problems. When residents are informed and empowered to address local issues, and connected to each other, they are better able to contribute to the growth and success of their community. These principles are supported by socio-technical systems that include information on evidenced-based crime prevention research, restorative justice, placemaking and other toolkits to support residents and stakeholders in developing empirically based, inclusive and socially-just solutions that are relevant to their local context (Saville, 2018). SafeGrowth is based in action research that seeks transformative change by working with participants as partners in the research process (Stringer & Aragón, 2020). The researcher then acts as a facilitator, rather than an expert, helping to bring participants together. By directly engaging with those afected most by local crime and victimisation issues, this method is better able to ensure local ownership and sustainable solutions (Saville, 2009). By building local knowledge and capacity, SafeGrowth creates competent non-proft groups that partner with other service providers in the community safety constellation (Caputo  & McIntyre, 2015) to co-plan and co-create community safety (Saville, 2018). This is collective efcacy. Collective efcacy is the ability for members of a community to work together to achieve shared goals or control unwanted behaviours and is well established as a predictor of crime and perceptions of safety (Sampson et al., 1997). However, there is little research on how to actually build collective efcacy in the twentyfrst century. While rural communities are often socially cohesive, social ties do not necessarily translate into shared action. As places to informally gather disappear or are removed (Oldenburg, 1989; Putnam, 2000) and inefectively replaced by online communities (Hampton, 2010), new strategies for not only building connection, but translating that connection into action on behalf of shared values, is of greater importance. With this capacity, residents and stakeholders can continue to adapt to address emerging issues in their community once the facilitator is no longer present (Saville, 2018). Doing so improves the likelihood of long-term impact and overall resilience.

Outcomes, limitations and considerations of communitybased interventions The causes of crime and victimisation in any community, including rural communities, tend to be multi-faceted and deep-rooted. As such, any prevention strategy attempting to address these issues, in a meaningful and sustainable way, will take time (Waller, 2006). Nonetheless, there are ways in which we can identify early measures of success – and potential limitations. SafeGrowth attempts to build social cohesion and collective efcacy by developing capacity to understand and address neighbourhood level issues. Since

246

Tarah Hodgkinson

implementation in 2016, North Battleford has experienced an increase in neighbourhood events and projects. Based on interviews with local stakeholders, they have witnessed an increase in the use of the downtown area, an increase in new businesses in this area and the creation of new community organisations. Furthermore, every year since 2016, participants have seen the number of requests for municipal support for block parties increase. In addition, as of 2022 North Battleford no longer ranks the highest for CSI in the country (though there is still much work to be done here). Since late 2020, interviews with stakeholders in Roma also demonstrate that community participation and engagement is also increasing. As a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the stakeholders involved in the Roma SafeGrowth project had never met or had the opportunity to work together. They now have a shared language regarding community safety and have been able to support each other in other ways while the youth hub is being built. This includes improved supports for youth at the local school, as support workers are now aware of each other and the specifc individual needs of these youth. Also, one stakeholder has been able to expand a gaming program for youth through the support they received from other Roma SafeGrowth team members. As with any research, there were limitations. In the North Battleford context, many of the participants were municipal workers, making it difcult to fully understand the needs of local residents, especially those who may be marginalised. While eforts were made to improve this knowledge, through local interviews and representative surveys (see Hodgkinson, 2019), the methodology is only improved by having a diverse range of local stakeholders who are committed to change in their community. In Roma, a number of delays, and movement of members of the Roma SafeGrowth team, have impacted the progress of the youth hub. In addition, much of their work was done through ongoing waves of the COVID19 pandemic, making it difcult to carry out their plans consistently. The Roma SafeGrowth team was also smaller and as such, more of the responsibility fell to a smaller group of people. Nonetheless, this also allowed the group to be highly focused in their project and vision for their community.

Learnings from the rural landscape So, what can we take away from these grass-roots interventions? First, that using a myriad of evidenced-based approaches, connected with the local context and applied through stakeholder-created neighbourhood plans, can result in the ownership of local issues, connections of service providers and some reductions in crime and victimisation (though we only have evidence of this in North Battleford thus far). Second, social cohesion in rural communities is not enough to address crime. While many of the participants felt that their community was socially cohesive, both communities were still dealing with high rates of crime and victimisation. This suggests that social cohesion does not necessarily translate to collective efcacy in the rural context.

Community-level responses to rural victimisation

247

Third, many service providers and local stakeholders in rural communities are rarely given the opportunity to connect and work together. The SafeGrowth methodology provides this opportunity and then educates participants in a shared language so that they can identify and address issues together. Fourth, and consistent with the third, there was a lack of forward planning in both communities. This was due in part to the fact that many local stakeholders did not see themselves in these communities for a long period of time. In addition, there were very few activities or cultural events that would attract young people to stay. As such, the SafeGrowth methodology provided new opportunities to create a more connected and liveable community and increase the diversity and inclusiveness of their population. Fifth, and fnally, in both case studies, there was a pervasive belief that the police should deal with all crime-related issues. One key thing is clear: the SafeGrowth methodology builds capacity and confdence in local residents and stakeholders that they could participate in community safety as well.

Moving forward – working with victims and communities to reduce victimisation This research is signifcant and innovative for three key reasons. First, it has the potential to demonstrate new strategies for building collective efcacy. The actionresearch focused nature of the project creates new mechanisms to bring together local actors to develop collective action around crime and disorder. Second, the research refects a democratic, inclusive and capacity building approach that promises an alternative to policing strategies in the wake of a movement to defund the police in some jurisdictions (Cunneen, 2020). The work is based on collaborative governance (Hodgkinson, 2018) and action-research (Hodgkinson & Saville, 2018) that takes a democratic and non-hierarchal approach to research. This is consistent with recent demands from Indigenous and other marginalised communities in Australia to develop research methodologies that are inclusive and participant-led (Australian Government, 2020). Furthermore, it creates capacity for addressing crime and safety issues at the local level that reduces dependence on police agencies that are well known for having tenuous relationships with Indigenous and marginalised communities in Australia and Canada (Whittaker, 2020). Third, this research demonstrates that working with rural communities, rather to or for them, can create more meaningful and sustainable solutions. Most crime prevention strategies involve applying projects to, or creating strategies for, a designated community. These strategies often fail to implement properly because they do not involve local actors or consider local context. Because the research is grounded in an action research framework (Kemmis et al., 2014; Hodgkinson & Saville, 2018), local residents and stakeholders are active in all stages of implementation of the strategy, having developed the strategy and how to evaluate it (with support from the SafeGrowth facilitators). This strategy appears to support an increasing body of crime prevention strategies that acknowledge the experiences and expertise of local actors (Reddel & Woolcock, 2004).

248

Tarah Hodgkinson

Criminologists have long been criticised for a lack of applicability of research fndings and an inability to translate research into practice. The translational criminology approach (Laub & Frisch, 2016) encapsulated here utilises evidence-based crime prevention and community building strategies to improve collective efcacy and community safety (Hodgkinson et  al., 2020; Saville, 2009). As mentioned, these strategies have not only demonstrated the ways in which this action research methodology has contributed to new opportunities for creating collective efcacy, but also begun to reduce crime rates and therefore victimisation in the North Battleford community (Hodgkinson et al., 2020).

Conclusion Preventing crime and victimisation in the twenty-frst century requires a broader vision of safer communities and a co-created plan to make those communities a reality. This chapter has explored how a particular neighbourhood-level, ecologically and socially minded planning methodology can support the development of local collective efcacy and governance. With a few limitations, this process has found some success in high crime rural areas in Canada and Australia. These interventions suggest a critical need to recognise the expertise of local change agents and functional neighbourhood organisations and to work with them to address local crime and victimisation issues. By creating rigorous plans for neighbourhood development and safety with residents and stakeholders, we not only ensure ownership, but also implementation and sustainability.

Note 1 2019 is used as a reference point for crime data as recent literature has demonstrated the signifcant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on crime rates (Hodgkinson & Andresen, 2020) and that this impact has difered signifcantly in urban versus rural areas of Queensland (Andresen & Hodgkinson, 2020).

References Andresen, M. A., & Hodgkinson, T. (2020). Somehow I always end up alone: COVID-19, social isolation and crime in Queensland, Australia. Crime Science, 9(1), Article 25. Australian Government. (2020). Closing the gap, report 2020. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government. Barclay, E. M. (2016). Farm victimisation: The quintessential rural crime. In J. F. Donnermeyer, (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of rural criminology (pp.  107–115). London: Routledge. Barclay, E. M. (2017). Rural crime. In A. Deckert & R. Sarre (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of Australian and New Zealand criminology, crime and justice (pp. 285–297). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Barclay, E. M., Donnermeyer, J. F., Scott, J., & Hogg, R. (2007). Crime in rural Australia. Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press.

Community-level responses to rural victimisation

249

Bell, E., & Hall, R. (2007). “Dead in the water”: Is rural violent crime prevention foating face-down because criminology can’t handle context? Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 9(4), 252–274. Caputo, T., & McIntyre, M. L. (2015). Addressing role and value in policing: Toward a sustainable policing framework. Policing: An International Journal, 38(2), 265–278. Carrington, K., Hogg, R., McIntosh, A., & Scott, J. (2012). Crime talk, FIFO workers and cultural confict on the mining boom frontier. Australian Humanities Review, 53, 1–16. Ceccato, V. A. (2016). Rural crime and community safety. London: Routledge. Ceccato, V. A., & Dolmen, L. (2013). Crime prevention in rural Sweden. European Journal of Criminology, 10(1), 89–112. Chilenski, S. M., Syvertsen, A. K.,  & Greenberg, M. T. (2015). Understanding the link between social organization and crime in rural communities. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 10(1), 109–127. Chou, C.-P., Montgomery, S., Pentz, M. A., Rohrbach, L. A., Johnson, C. A., Flay, B. R., & MacKinnon, D. P. (1998). Efects of a community-based prevention program on decreasing drug use in high-risk adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 88(6), 944–948. Coverdale, R. (2011). Postcode justice: Rural and regional disadvantage in the administration of the law in Victoria. Geelong: Deakin University. Cunneen, C. (2020, June 10). Defunding the police could bring positive change in Australia: These communities are showing the way. The Conversation. Retrieved from https:// theconversation.com/defunding-the-police-could-bring-positive-change-in-australiathese-communities-are-showing-the-way-140333 Deller, S. C., & Deller, M. A. (2010). Rural crime and social capital. Growth and Change, 41(2), 221–275. Donnermeyer, J. F., DeKeseredy, W. S., & Dragiewicz, M. (2016). Policing rural Canada and the United States. In R. I. Mawby & R. Yarwood (Eds.), Rural policing and policing the rural: A constable countryside? (pp. 23–32). London: Routledge. Edwards, R. W., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (2002). Introduction: Substance use in rural communities around the world. Substance Use and Misuse, 37(5–7), vii–xii. Fagan, A. A., Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2018). Communities that care: Building community engagement and capacity to prevent youth behavior problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Feinberg, M. E., Greenberg, M. T., Osgood, D. W., Sartorius, J., & Bontempo, D. (2007). Efects of the communities that care model in Pennsylvania on youth risk and problem behaviors. Prevention Science, 8(4), 261–270. Forrester, D., Chatterton, M., & Pease, K. (1988). The Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Project, Rochdale (Crime Prevention Unit Paper, No. 13). London: Home Ofce. Hampton, K. N. (2010). Internet use and the concentration of disadvantage: Glocalization and the urban underclass. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1111–1132. Harkness, A. (2017). Crime prevention on farms: Experiences from Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 3(2), 131–156. Harkness, A. (Ed.). (2020). Rural crime prevention: Theory, tactics and techniques. London: Routledge. Hodgkinson, T. (2018). Help! I need somebody. Help! Not just anybody: An event perspective of the community safety partnership making process in Canada. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Canada: Simon Fraser University. Hodgkinson, T. (2019). Perceptions of safety in North Battleford: Household survey report. Retrieved from https://www.cityofnb.ca/mrws/fledriver/NorthBattlefordBaselineSurveyReport_ 2019.pdf

250

Tarah Hodgkinson

Hodgkinson, T. (2021a). Youth ofending in Roma, QLD 2010–2020, Fact Sheet. Mt. Gravatt, QLD: Grifth Criminological Institute. Hodgkinson, T. (2021b). It’s been a long time running: New understandings of crime severity and specialization in Canada’s longest running crime capital, North Battleford. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 66, 293–306. Hodgkinson, T., & Andresen, M. A. (2020). Show me a man or a woman alone and I’ll show you a saint: Changes in the frequency of criminal incidents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Criminal Justice, 69, Article 101706. Hodgkinson, T., & Farrell, G. (2018). Situational crime prevention and Public Safety Canada’s crime-prevention programme. Security Journal, 31(1), 325–342. Hodgkinson, T., & Harkness, A. (2020). Introduction to rural crime prevention. In A. Harkness (Ed.), Rural crime prevention: Theory, tactics and techniques (pp. 1–16). London: Routledge. Hodgkinson, T., & Harris, B. (2021). The impact of the “Not Now, Not Ever” Recommendations on police-reported domestic violence in Queensland, Australia. Violence against Women. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012211060857 Hodgkinson, T., & Saville, G. (2018). Principle 1: Action-based practice. In G. Saville (Ed.), SafeGrowth: Innovative, livable and safe neighborhoods (pp. 131–140). Denver, CO: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Hodgkinson, T., Saville, G., Sutton, H., & MacKrell, R. (2020). No dress rehearsal, this is our life: Crime prevention in the hands of local residents. In A. Harkness (Ed.), Rural crime prevention: Theory, tactics and techniques (pp. 149–160). London: Routledge. Hogg, R., & Carrington, K. (2006). Policing the rural crisis. Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Kaylen, M. T., & Pridemore, W. A. (2013). Social disorganization and crime in rural communities: The frst direct test of the systemic model. British Journal of Criminology, 53(5), 905–923. Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer. Laub, J. H., & Frisch, N. E. (2016). Translational criminology: A new path forward. In T. G. Blomberg, J. M. Brancale, K. M. Beaver, & W. D. Bales (Eds.), Advancing criminology and criminal justice policy (pp. 78–88). New York: Routledge. Lumsden, K., Goode, J.,  & Black, A. (2019). “I  will not be thrown out of the country because I’m an immigrant”: Eastern European migrants’ responses to hate crime in a semi-rural context in the wake of Brexit. Sociological Research Online, 24(2), 167–184. Manitoba Auto Theft Task Force. (2009). The Winnipeg auto theft suppression strategy. Winnepeg, MN: Manitoba Auto Theft Task Force. Markey, S. (2010). Fly-in, fy-out resource development: A new regionalist perspective on the next rural economy. In G. Halseth, S. Markey,  & D. Bruce (Eds.), The next rural economies: Constructing rural place in global economies (pp. 239–250). Oxfordshire: CABI. Markusof, J. (2017, November  23). Canada’s most dangerous place, North Battleford, is fghting for its future. Macleans. Retrieved from https://www.macleans.ca/society/ north-battleford-canadas-most-dangerous-place-is-fghting-for-its-future/ Mascarenhas, M. (2007). Where the waters divide: First Nations, tainted water and environmental justice in Canada. Local Environment, 12(6), 565–577. Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafes, cofee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. New York: Marlowe & Company. Perrault, S. (2019). Police-reported crime in rural and urban areas in the Canadian provinces, 2017. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Community-level responses to rural victimisation

251

Reddel, T., & Woolcock, G. (2004). From consultation to participatory governance? A critical review of citizen engagement strategies in Queensland. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(3), 75–87. Rennison, C., Dragiewicz, M., & DeKeseredy, W. (2013). Context matters: Violence against women and reporting to police in rural, suburban and urban areas. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 141–159. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efcacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924. Saville, G. (2009). SafeGrowth: Moving forward in neighbourhood development. Built Environment, 35(3), 386–402. Saville, G. (2018). SafeGrowth: Building neighborhoods of safety and livability. Denver, CO: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Skogan, W. G., Hartnett, S. M., Bump, N.,  & Dubois, J. (2009). Evaluation of ceasefreChicago. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Spoth, R. (2007). Opportunities to meet challenges in rural prevention research: Findings from an evolving community-university partnership model. Journal of Rural Health, 23(S1), 42–54. Statistics Canada. (2016). Population centre and rural area classifcation 2016. Ottawa, ON: Author. Statistics Canada. (2019). Crime severity index and weighted clearance rates, police services in Saskatchewan. Ottawa, ON: Author. Stringer, E. T., & Aragón, A. O. (2020). Action research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Violence Reduction Unit. (2011). The violence must stop: Glasgow’s community initiative to reduce violence, second year report. Glasgow: Violence Reduction Unit. Waller, I. (2006). Less law more order: The truth about reducing crime. Hamilton, ON: Manor House Publishing. Whittaker, A. (2020, June 3). Despite 432 Indigenous deaths in custody since 1991, no one has ever been convicted. Racist silence and complicity are to blame. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/despite-432-indigenous-deaths-in-custodysince-1991-no-one-has-ever-been-convicted-racist-silence-and-complicity-are-toblame-139873 Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1987). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. World Health Organization (WHO). (2018). Imbalances in rural primary care: A scoping literature review with an emphasis on the WHO European Region. Geneva: World Health Organization.

CASE STUDY Implementing SafeGrowth in North Battleford and Roma

North Battleford in west-central Saskatchewan in Canada, and Roma in Queensland in Australia, are rural communities which share several similarities. Canadian and Australian rural crime rates are often higher than urban crime rates (Donnermeyer, 2007; Barclay, 2007). Both countries have similar colonising histories in which Indigenous peoples have sufered genocide, loss of culture and loss of land (Reyhner & Singh, 2010), resulting in many Indigenous communities being forced to move to more rural or remote areas and thus, accounting for a signifcant portion of the population in these places. Both countries also ofer incentives for ‘rural’ stints, in which professional service providers are ofered higher wages for working in rural areas for short periods (Viscomi et al., 2013). This creates residential turnover and transiency which reduces community capacity to exert informal and formal social control (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993). Social services for youth, mental health, addiction and family violence are lacking in rural areas in Canada and Australia (WHO, 2018). Clearly, there are several similarities in these two communities that allow for an analysis of the efcacy of the SafeGrowth methodology in the rural context.

The beginnings of SafeGrowth in North Battleford and Roma In 2014, North Battleford created a community safety strategy to address ongoing crime issues, reduce victimisation and build local business and capacity. As part of this strategy, four municipal employees attended a SafeGrowth training in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.1 There they developed a strategy to work with the newly formed homeless shelter. A year later, North Battleford held SafeGrowth training for an additional 25 local stakeholders.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-33

Community-level responses to rural victimisation

253

The beginnings of the SafeGrowth training in Roma difered. In 2020, as part of a small research project, this author contacted municipal employees in Roma to see if there was interest in the deployment of SafeGrowth to address local crime and victimisation. A series of information sessions were held in August 2020 for local residents and stakeholders, using the principles of appreciative inquiry. The process involved participants identifying what contributes to local community safety and cohesion and how they could continue or expand these initiatives (Drew & Wallis, 2014; Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). This is done to build excitement and energy around a new project by acknowledging and celebrating the important work that is already happening (McIntyre et al., 2021). Inevitably, this process also raises issues that participants are now inspired to tackle.

Determining local concerns and developing solutions SafeGrowth involves four stages. First, stakeholders participate in a two-day forum on the main tenets of the SafeGrowth philosophy and methodology. Participants learn to identify and research local issues. Second, stakeholders work in smaller groups to produce a report that defnes their vision for their community, the identifed issue, supporting evidence and their plan to address the issue(s). Third, the stakeholders present this report to the SafeGrowth facilitator and other local stakeholders and council members to receive feedback and additional support to strengthen their proposal. Fourth, the stakeholders implement their proposal with continued support from the facilitators as needed. In North Battleford, participants conducted a local risk assessment and determined that residents felt unsafe in the downtown area, attributed to high levels of social and physical disorder and the lack of maintenance. This discouraged residents from using the downtown area, and that further contributed to fear of crime and safety concerns for individuals who worked downtown. The local homeless shelter was an area of signifcant concern for residents and business owners, as it appeared to contribute to physical disorder. Rather than taking a punitive approach, the team worked closely with the shelter owners to develop a community garden, beautifying the area and creating a local food source which expanded opportunities for positive social interactions between residents and surrounding businesses. In addition, the team created an intersection mural (The City Repair Project, 2019) to connect residents and businesses to paint the street as part of an annual cultural event, and to slow down trafc and contribute to road safety. Team members that were part of the municipal government were able to utilise their learnings to implement fnancial incentives for downtown business development. As such, they have grown the number of businesses in the area, enhancing natural surveillance and space activation (Saville, 2018). The team also started a local crime prevention committee, instilling the lessons at the municipal level and ensuring that crime prevention continued in the

254 Tarah Hodgkinson

community long after the original stakeholders had moved on. For example, each year, the city supports several street block parties and holds competitions for residents who help organise and run these events. Finally, in 2018, the North Battleford SafeGrowth team partnered with this author to develop a community victimisation survey to better understand the impact of their work and develop an evidence base for future initiatives. In Roma, participants identifed youth ofending (supported by police data) as a major concern, linking a lack of activities and services for at-risk youth. They identifed that youth were often dealing with issues at home, including violence, a lack of food and frequent evictions by parents or guardians. The Roma SafeGrowth team developed a plan to use an empty municipal building as a youth hub, wherein local services provide activities and a safe space for those seeking shelter, food or mental health services. These plans were developed in partnership with local at-risk youth who identifed these needs and helped to develop the solutions. Two local service providers who identifed as Indigenous were involved ensuring the integration of Indigenous Australian culture, particularly considering some of the at-risk youth involved identifed as Indigenous. The Roma SafeGrowth team presented their plan to council to gain access to the empty building and revitalise it for a youth hub. Council unanimously approved the plans at the end of 2020.

Note 1 The planning department in Saskatoon had been conducting this training every year for over ten years and most of their municipal employees had been trained in the formal SafeGrowth program at some point during their tenure.

References Barclay, E. (Ed.). (2007). Crime in rural Australia. Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Bursik Jr, R. J., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of efective community control. New York: Lexington Books. Cooperrider, D., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Donnermeyer, J. F. (2007). Rural crime: Roots and restoration. International Journal of Rural Crime, 1(1), 2–20. Drew, S. A., & Wallis, J. L. (2014). The use of appreciative inquiry in the practices of largescale organisational change a review and critique: A review and critique. Journal of General Management, 39(4), 3–26. McIntyre, M. L., Caputo, T., Hodgkinson, T., Wang, L., & Davidson, R. (2021). Using organizational performance assessment to improve service to the community. Police Practice and Research, 22(1), 711–726. Reyhner, J., & Singh, N. K. (2010). Cultural genocide in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States: The destruction and transformation of Indigenous cultures. Indigenous Policy Journal, 21(4), 1–26. Saville, G. (2018). SafeGrowth: Building neighborhoods of safety and livability. Denver, CO: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Community-level responses to rural victimisation

255

The City Repair Project. (2019). Street paintings: The city repair project. Retrieved from https://cityrepair.org/street-painting-examples Viscomi, M., Larkins, L.,  & Gupta, T. S. (2013). Recruitment and retention of general practitioners in rural Canada and Australia: A review of the literature. Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine, 18(1), 13–23. World Health Organization (WHO). (2018). Imbalances in rural primary care: A scoping literature review with an emphasis on the WHO European Region. Geneva: World Health Organization.

18 RURAL VICTIMOLOGY SCHOLARSHIP INTO THE FUTURE Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

By the 1980s, victimology had come of age, and the study of crime victims has since become an integral part of criminology. The 1980s and 1990s were periods of consolidation, data gathering and theory formulation, coupled with new legislation and the development of victim compensation, ofender restitution, victim-ofender mediation and other victim services. The wealth of data collected – mainly through victimisation surveys – has led to various theoretical formulations. These include plausible explanations for the variations in victimisation risks, and for the clustering of victimisation in certain areas and certain groups. Developments in victimology have been marked by the shift from the micro to the macro, with a signifcant contemporary focus on large-scale victimisation. Since the turn of the twenty-frst century, we have also witnessed a transformation from heavily theoretical to much more applied victimology. The Lifestyle Model developed by Hindelang et al. (1978) posits that the likelihood that an individual will sufer personal victimisation depends heavily on their own lifestyle. The Routine Activity Approach, developed by Cohen and Felson (1979), argues that the occurrence of this type of victimisation is the outcome of the convergence in space and time of three elements: motivated ofenders; suitable targets; and the absence of capable guardianship. The opportunity model (Cohen et al., 1981) incorporates elements from these two models and posits that the risk of criminal victimisation depends largely on a person’s lifestyle and their routine activities that bring them and/or their property into direct contact with potential ofenders in the absence of capable guardians. A variant, developed by Van Dijk and Steinmetz (1983), suggests that three main factors – proximity, attractiveness and exposure – are the most important determinants of diferential victimisation risks. In an attempt to integrate the various models into a comprehensive system, Fattah (1991) grouped all the seemingly relevant factors into ten diferent categories including, importantly, the notion of

DOI: 10.4324/9781003132691-34

Rural victimology scholarship into the future

257

structural/cultural proneness which recognises that there exists a positive correlation between powerlessness, deprivation and the frequency of criminal victimisation. Cultural stigmatisation and marginalisation also enhance the risks of criminal victimisation by designating certain groups as ‘fair game’ or as culturally legitimate victims. In an applied sense, and using a variant of this framework in a contemporary context, Clack (2015) studied the application of criminological theory to livestock theft cases, considering the notion of proximity or an ofender to a target. Considerations of victimisation in the canon of criminological literature have hitherto been principally urban-centric; mostly focused on theoretical constructs of victimology and on specifc types of victimisation; and overlooking issues and challenges in rural contexts. This chapter considers key themes for further theorising rural victimology and empirical research on rural victimisation: • • •

•

conceptualising the rural victim through challenging uncritical and normative constructions of victimisation understanding how space and place impacts on vulnerability to rural victimisation expanding the concept of the rural victim beyond human form evaluating the appropriateness of existing victimological theories in explaining rural victimisation, encouraging the development of a specifc theory of rural victimisation situating policy and practice reform and responses to victims in the rural space, advocating for positive change

Conceptualising the rural victim The representation, realities of and responses to rural victimisation presented in Rural Victims of Crime serve to challenge normative (urban) conceptualisations of victims and victimhood. Victimisation in rural spaces can take many forms, some of which are relatively under-researched in urban-centric victim studies which have tended to focus on person-centered crimes and interpersonal issues (Duggan, 2018). For example, harms to the built and natural environments and non-human victimisation have emerged as salient issues pertaining to rural spaces, as has victimisation in agricultural and farming spaces which is unique to rural settings and therefore not prominent in urban-centric victimological literature. Victimisation that occurs in rural spaces is distinctive and requires tailored responses to address the unique context in which these harms occur. Similarly, the way in which victims have been conceptualised in urban contexts will not translate neatly to the rural reality. A place-based lens can be applied to understand how the ascribing of victim status is impacted by rurality, wherein social and individual interpretations are uniquely constructed within the rural context. Nils Christie’s (1986) notion of ‘the ideal victim’ speaks to the social construction of victimhood, referring to a “person or category of individuals who – when hit by crime – most readily are given the complete and legitimate status of being a victim” (Christie, 1986, p. 18). Christie

258

Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

avers that the ascribing of this status is dependent on a number of individual characteristics, such as if the victim is weak (particularly in relation to the ofended), old or particularly young, and blameless. From the chapters in this collection, we can see how ‘rurality’ serves as a characteristic beyond those identifed by Christie, which in and of itself afects the attainment of legitimate victim status and which further compounds those limiting factors which Christie and others have already identifed. Rurality is therefore presented here as a factor that can further limit a person or group of individuals achieving recognition as a legitimate victim. According to Christie (1986), for a victim to gain legitimacy they must have power (but not too much) and visibility. Rural victims are certainly less visible by virtue of their relative geographic remoteness – as well as within the broader victimological discourse. This limits the capability of a rural victim to be seen and heard with regard to the harm they have experienced. The bestowing of legitimate victim status occurs within the wider community and through media representations, but more formally through the criminal justice system, frstly with police. The way in which police respond, or indeed do not respond, determines whether someone is even recognised formally as having been victimised. In some rural areas that are particularly close knit with high acquaintance density, police may exercise their discretion and choose not to record or investigate reports of victimisation. This decision to act or not act can be based on the perceived worthiness of the victim as deserving (or not) of receiving full recognition. Further, the ability for individuals to receive recognition as legitimate victims through the court process requires them to have the ability to express the harm that the victimisation has caused them. For human victims, this is often contingent on engagement with victim support and advocacy services, which can be lacking in rural communities. For non-human victims, such as animals or the natural and built environment, the ascribing of victim status is further limited and contingent on human recognition of these entities as victims. Beyond the ‘ideal victim’, Christie (1986) also explores the notion of the ‘nonideal victim’, which we can apply to rural contexts. For example, Christie describes ‘workers’ as non-ideal victims of structural inequalities who become losers in a class system that works against their interests and which subsequently harms them. Parallels can be made with rural and remote communities which are generally found to have higher concentrations of socio-economic disadvantage and which lack access to social services and resources. As the creation of this relative disadvantage cannot be attributable to one specifc person, an ofender per se, there is an absence of an ideal ofender against which an ‘ideal victim’ can be ascribed. The same can be said for rural harms stemming from the climate crisis, wherein identifying a single ‘ofender’ is not possible, owing to the global responsibility for avoiding and mitigating these harms. Without an ‘ideal ofender’, legitimate victim status is difcult to acquire. The label of ‘non-ideal’ victim also extends to those individuals who do not wish to be recognised as victims. Victims may choose to distance themselves from the label of ‘victim’ for several reasons, including the associated stigma, rejection

Rural victimology scholarship into the future

259

and isolation that can eventuate (Fohring, 2018a). There are several forms of harm following which individuals may choose not to identify as victims within the rural context, such as women abuse and hate crime. In small rural towns, identifcation with victimhood can threaten an individual’s place and belonging within their community, and it may lead to ostracisation and exclusion. This results in signifcant under-reporting of crime, concealing the true extent of rural victimisation. A critical problem arises here in that “victims who reject the label face the same problems, that is, lack of justice, protection, care, support and compensation” (Fohring, 2018b, p. 207).

Understanding how place and vulnerability intersect Defnitions of ‘vulnerability’ vary by discipline and can canvass issues of poverty, lack of resilience and coping mechanisms at individual, community and national levels (Lazarte, 2017). Exploration of vulnerability factors are interrogated reasonably extensively in the extant scholarly literature as it pertains to crime and victimisation. For instance, Petersson and Thunberg (2021) have analysed vulnerability factors for women victims of intimate partner violence; Storey (2020) has reviewed the literature on risk factors for elder abuse. Whilst there may well be lessons taken from this wealth of empirical research for rural settings, less so are lessons regarding the concept of vulnerability as it relates to rural victimisation. This, though, is central to many chapters in Rural Victims of Crime, with consideration for how ‘place’ can amplify the relative vulnerability of those situated in rural locations drawn upon by many contributors. Vital for us to consider is the existing nature of relative vulnerability for minority groups, and how rurality amplifes this vulnerability – potentially increasing the risk of victimisation. A working paper of the International Labour Ofce (Lazarte, 2017) considers the drivers of and responses to vulnerability in the rural. The paper distinguishes between external elements that are ‘drivers of vulnerability’ (such as service and policy failure) and ‘drivers of resilience’ (such as policies, tools and mechanisms which address vulnerability) and internal elements (such as information provision, social networks and resources) (Lazarte, 2017, p.  2). Rural disadvantage “increases exposure to risk and therefore their level of vulnerability” (p. 3), as does marginalisation – particularly on First Nations people, the extreme poor, people with disabilities and the elderly (p. 4). Not only is rurality posited to increase the relative vulnerability of certain groups, but it can also contribute to their invisibility. This has detrimental efects when minority group members do become victims of crime in rural locations in terms of being recognised as victims of crime with the ability to access services and support. This discrimination against diferent minority groups occurs in a range of ways given that rural communities are not homogenous in nature. An intersectional approach is increasingly popular in understanding vulnerability and victimisation, with consideration as to how gender, race, age, ability, sexuality

260

Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

and so on afects the relative risk of victimisation, particularly for individuals from minority groups. For those who are young, female, Indigenous, disabled, in nonheterosexual relationships or Queer, the risk of victimisation is increased, indicative of a heightened relative vulnerability. A useful examination of the integration of intersectionality into criminology is ofered by Potter (2015), who argues that an intersectional approach to assessing crime is vital. To these intersectional factors, criminologists and practitioners alike ought to add geographic location to the mix of dynamics that can increase the relative vulnerability of individuals, indicating how rurality may heighten the risk of becoming a victim of crime, particularly for those persons who already possess a minority status. There is indeed an important need to look at ‘place’ in addition to other factors – recognising that place compounds the impact of other factors which have been more widely acknowledged in intersectional theoretical approaches. That is, we need to add rurality as an equal factor in considerations of vulnerability, both for interpersonal and property ofending and victimisation. Rurality, indeed, is increasingly recognised as a risk factor. The Australian National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (2021), for instance, notes that: People living in regional, rural or remote communities may be at greater risk of experiencing domestic and family violence, may be more vulnerable to its impacts, and may face additional barriers to accessing help due to a range of geographic, economic, cultural and social factors more likely to be present in smaller communities than in larger towns and cities. Observing that factors will vary “in degree and combination for each community and for each of the individuals and circumstances involved”, the Bench Book (2021) identifes common factors (based on Australian research) as: • •

• • •

• • •

Physical and social isolation The close, conservative nature of Australian rural and farming communities, in particular, perceived lack of confdentiality, privacy and anonymity in small communities where news travels quickly through informal networks Ready access to frearms and other weapons Greater likelihood of victim or perpetrator having a pre-existing relationship with local police, emergency services or other service providers Limited or lack of local services, professionals and trained workers to assist victims, children and perpetrators including 24 hour on-call police response, safe and culturally appropriate crisis accommodation, intervention and behaviour remediation programs Distance from critical services and limited public transport options A sense of shame in extended family and community members knowing about the abuse and the abusive relationship Economic and structural decline of some Australian regional, rural and remote communities, and an inadequate social security safety net

Rural victimology scholarship into the future

•

261

Heightened fnancial and emotional stress within families due to the efects of drought, fre, food or poor trading markets. (National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book, 2021)

Research from Youngson et al. (2021) analysed locational factors (geographic location, access to transport options, community resourcing defciencies) and cultural factors (accessibility of frearms, poverty, lack of privacy/anonymity) as risk factors for victims of violence against women in rural settings. With regard to acquisitive crime, other Australian research, focusing specifcally on thefts from farms, observes several socio-demographic, geographic and evidence related vulnerability factors (Harkness & Larkins, 2020, p. 229). Such factors include the diferent, more laconic and relaxed attitudes to crime and safety – a ‘she’ll be right’ mentality; and the changing and unstable populations in some areas (such as places with mining populations). Less attention to the implementation of crime prevention measures exacerbates vulnerability and increases the risk of victimisation. It is recognised, too, that ofenders are more organised than before, utilising technology for instance to enhance opportunity and decrease risk of being caught. The remoteness and distance between properties, ease of access to a property and improved transport infrastructure (which allows for speedier access and egress from farming communities) are specifc geographic factors. Demographics are also an important factor to consider: certain groups of people in our society are more likely to become victims of crime. Perpetrating crime and being a victim of crime decreases with age. There is also a gender gap in ofending – males make up the majority of ofenders (for most types of ofences), and overall, males are more likely to be the victims of violent crime (sexual violence being an exception). Members of racial/ethnic minority groups are disproportionately at risk of being victimised. Indigenous groups and other minority groups living in rural regions/localities, particularly those in western countries, are often plagued by multiple problems, including high rates of family disruption and parental incarceration, chronic unemployment, poor educational opportunities and limited access to quality health care. Although these factors are common to urban populations as well, their intersectionality with the social and economic characteristics of rural places may increase the risk of victimisation.

The need for development of ‘rural victimology’ Given the evident diversity in the forms of victimisation that occur in rural places, it is not desirable to propose just a single theory to embody and explain the numerous realities of rural victimisation. To do so would undermine the multi-faceted nature of the harms that occur in rural spaces. Rather, it is more appropriate (and useful) to advance an overarching framework or general approach to rural victimology. Any theoretical framing must have the capability to capture the nuances of rural ofending and victimisation. The development of ‘rural victimology’ as

262

Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

a distinct feld of study needs to have sufcient scope and breadth to capture the diverse nature and realities of rural victimisation. A  rural strand of victimology would enable the reveal of forms of victimisation which have been quite absent in traditional victimology, taking us beyond existing ‘generalist victimology’. As noted by Donnermeyer (2022a), rural criminology “will never advance its research portfolio without theory . . . without the conscious and consistent use of theory to develop and advance a research agenda, rural criminology will not only be merely dead but really most sincerely dead”. The theoretical contributions contained in Rural Victims of Crime are signifcant and speak to the need for further theorising on rural victimology from a critical perspective. In accord with Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy’s (2008) call for a ‘rural critical criminology’ and based on the insights presented in Rural Victims of Crime, a new ‘critical rural victimology’ is warranted. Whilst ‘critical criminology’ has existed since the 1970s, ‘critical victimology’ did not emerge until the 1990s (Miers, 1990; Walklate, 1989, 1990). Critical victimology directs attention to the role of structural factors, such as patriarchy, and away from the role of the victim which colours positivist theories of victim precipitation. Just as studies of the rural have been relatively absent from critical criminological scholarship, so too have studies of rural victimisation been missing from the sphere of critical victimology. Although to date a largely urban-based theory, critical victimology does have applicability to the study of rural victimisation. It enables an understanding of “the processes that ‘go on behind our backs’ which contribute to the victims (and the crime) we ‘see’ as opposed to that which we do not ‘see’” (Mawby & Walklate, 1994, p. 16), and in so doing “problematises both the law and the role of the state” (p. 17). Central to this rural critical victimology is the role of structured social inequality in creating the conditions in which rural victimisation occurs and persists. As contributions to this collection have evidenced, individual experiences of rural victimology cannot and should not be considered separate from the social, political and economic contexts in which they occur. Any approach to doing rural victimology must therefore also be intersectional in nature. A rural critical victimological approach would challenge the political dimensions of rural victimisation, perhaps by highlighting the limitations of various responses to victimisation, such as tougher legislation and criminal justice measures on reducing crime rates and thus the number of future victims. This is especially pertinent to rural communities wherein social and justice services are limited. As Fattah (1992, p. 5) states when frst calling for a critical victimology, we must “diferentiate between genuine concern for crime victims and their use as pawns in the politics of law and order”. Not all victims matter to the state, though. Rural communities sufer some of the worst disadvantages and deprivation relative to urban areas, an unfortunate reality experienced the world over. The persisting lack of attention to the needs of rural victims, symbolised by the lack of victim support services in rural and remote areas relative to urban ones, is very telling.

Rural victimology scholarship into the future

263

The macro focus encouraged in this chapter does not imply that attention to the meso (community) and micro (individual) is unwarranted in rural victimology research. In fact, as various contributions to Rural Victims of Crime have illustrated, there are processes operating at the local level which serve to keep rural victim experiences hidden, such as in the case of violence against women – community eforts to maintain patriarchal social arrangements by stigmatising and silencing victims of crime. However, there is also evidence of community-level initiatives and eforts to prevent and respond to rural victimisation which should be examined, evaluated and emulated.

Policy and practice reform and responses Broadly speaking, criminology is the study of crime, deviancy and social control. This means seeking out explanations for crime causation (that is, theory), proposing solutions and critically evaluating approaches to both preventing and responding to crime. Crime touches and overlaps with many areas of life, from politics and public health to business and information technology. As such, criminology is profoundly interdisciplinary; yet, at its contemporary core, explanations for crime victimisation and associated responses rest on a foundation of sociological theory that has been revised and persistently evolved to address criminological questions (for instance strain theory, the Chicago School and so on). Among a variety of approaches, particular heed ought to be paid to the part of the ‘new criminology’ known as left realism: in short, left realists are critical of much of the liberal failure to treat crime seriously and strive to challenge the conservative monopoly on matters of law and order by fnding practical and tangible ways of solving, preventing and responding to crime. Here we can refect on the work of the late criminologist Roger Matthews, particularly his critique of ‘So What Criminology’ (Matthews, 2010). In short, criminological research should proceed with a depth of theorisation; be clear and well-defned conceptually; and above all, have relevance and signifcance when it comes to practical solutions and policy. We can, too, acknowledge the importance of Young’s (2011) ‘Criminological Imagination’ (informed by C.W. Mill’s Sociological Imagination, 1959) which highlights the need to prioritise the creative and critical potential of criminology, especially when considering method and measurement. Criminology which ignores “class, the state and social structures” avoids grappling with “the relations between structure and agency” (Matthews, 2010, p. 2). Purely pragmatic scholarship without a critical component, he argues, are of limited value; similarly, “those studies that are purely theoreticist, essentially speculative and opinionated, that use limited and selective evidence” (p. 2). We always need to be mindful of the foundations of criminology – that is theory, research methods, key concepts and so on – and apply this learning and knowledge to real world problems and the development of practical solutions. We should also take care to ensure that the relevance of criminological knowledge and thinking is communicated broadly; that is, the ‘so what’ element. Part of this includes a

264

Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

better integration of skill and knowledge application to rural communities. At the same time, above all, we should strive to produce well-informed, free and critical thinking. Donnermeyer (2022b) provides an articulation of 16 key theoretical gaps in the study of rural crime, which also double as empirical gaps. These can be grouped around type of victim (such as farmers, LGBTIQA+ individuals, Indigenous peoples), types of crime (such as cybercrime, drug production, environmental crime), ofenders creating victimisation (such as hate groups) and responses to victimisation (such as by police). Each of these has direct relevance to considerations of rural victimisation, and in addition to Donnermeyer’s call for a middle range theoretical framework to attend to these in a general sense, there also exists a need for empirical work to inform and possibly revise theory; for theory to guide research. Many crimes which occur in rural places are similar as those committed in urban places, but with distinct rural dimensions. To take just one example: people the world over, regardless of geographic location, will be targeted for fraud – but as Cross (2020, p. 169) observes, “[e]xisting statistics on fraud are largely invisible to a rural/urban context for victimisation”, and thus fraud itself in rural contexts is rendered invisible. What diferentiates ofending in one geographic context compared with another is the mechanisms in which victims will be targeted. For both romance fraud and afnity fraud, impacts can be severe, and the scale of victimisation magnifed by a lack of support services and the stigma of victimisation (Cross, 2020). An additional overlay is the status of ‘non-ideal victims’ in the Christie framing (Cross, 2018) of victims of fraud combined with enhanced vulnerability and low reporting rates in rural settings. A characteristic of many instances of rural crime is that ofending, and thus victimisation, is hidden from view: from other rural residents locally; from authorities and the formal aspects of the criminal justice system; from service providers (who may be under-resourced or not present); and from researchers. Numerous examples abound, such as interpersonal violence against women, children and the elderly, modern-day slavery, hate crime, farm crime, heritage crime, and environmental crime and harm brought about by the climate crisis. So, what can be done about addressing rural victimisation? First and foremost, people need to take an active interest in what occurs in rural places – an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ mentality ought to be no more. Importantly, there must be implementation of mechanisms for change, but the focus ought not just be on resourcing – as important as this is, as something that warrants redress – but also structural change. The political and socio-structural dimensions of rural victimisation need to be challenged and addressed. For risk of infating the guarantee of redress through the criminal justice system, it must also be acknowledged that in some rural and remote parts of the world, a formal justice system does not exist in which matters of victimisation can be pursued. Criminal justice responses to rural victimisation need to be tailored to the unique needs of rural settings, not uplifting urban responses which simply will not ft. Policing responses will be impacted by the tyranny of distance coupled with

Rural victimology scholarship into the future

265

resourcing defciencies. There are a multitude of issues with courts as well, not just related to their physical location but also with regard to privacy ofered for victims and survivors (such as a lack of separate meeting spaces) (George & Harris, 2014). Support services are also stretched, and in many instances globally there has been a trend towards a reliance on web-based services – but we must consider information technology access, telephone reception and internet reliability as inhibiting factors. In addition to the development of a ‘rural victimology’ theoretical framing, there does exist a multitude of topics demanding scholarship into the future by rural criminologists and other researchers. Such topics can be broadly cast: for instance, there is a need to move beyond a rigid defnition of crime to include notions of harm, such as to the environment and to the natural and built heritage. Further research on specifc topics which have thus far escaped attention is also needed. For instance, there is an extreme paucity of research specifcally on the rural dimensions of hate crime and the victimisation of rural extremism. Much more work is also needed that adopts a global rural victimology approach which is cross-comparative. This collection will hopefully serve as a springboard from which further rural victimological scholarship can evolve and thrive to explore the complex and nuanced realities of rural victimisation across the globe.

References Christie, N. (1986). The ideal victim. In E. A. Fattah (Ed.), From crime policy to victim policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Clack, W. J. (2015). Criminology theories: An analysis of livestock theft cases. Acta Criminologica: African Journal of Criminology and Victimology, 28(2). Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608. Cohen, L. E., Kluegel, J. R., & Land, K. C. (1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review, 46(5), 505–524. Cross, C. (2018). Denying victim status to online fraud victims: The challenges of being a ‘non-ideal victim’. In M. Duggan (Ed.), Revisiting the ‘ideal victim’: Developments in critical victimology (pp. 243–262). Bristol: Policy Press. Cross, C. (2020). Preventing fraud victimisation in rural areas. In A. Harkness (Ed.), Rural crime prevention: Theory, tactics and techniques (pp. 165–178). London: Routledge. Donnermeyer, J. F. (2022a). An essay on theory and research in rural criminology. In R. A. Weisheit, J. R. Peterson, & A. Pytlarz (Eds.), Research methods for rural criminologists. London: Routledge. Donnermeyer, J. F. (2022b). Theoretical and empirical gaps in rural criminology. In M. Bowden & A. Harkness (Eds.), Rural transformations and rural crime: International critical perspectives in rural criminology. Bristol: Bristol University Press. Donnermeyer, J. F., & DeKeseredy, W. (2008). Rural criminology. London: Routledge. Duggan, M. (2018). Revisiting the ‘ideal victim’: Development in critical victimology. Bristol: Policy Press. Fattah, E. A. (1991). Understanding criminal victimization: An introduction to theoretical victimology. Scarborough, ON: Prentice Hall Canada. Fattah, E. A. (1992). Towards a critical victimology. New York: Springer.

266

Rachel Hale and Alistair Harkness

Fohring, S. (2018a). What’s in a word? Victims on ‘victim’. International Review of Victimology, 24(2), 151–164. Fohring, S. (2018b). Revisiting the non-ideal victim. In S. Fohring (Ed.), Revisiting the ‘ideal’ victim (pp. 195–209). Bristol: Bristol University Press. George, A.,  & Harris, B. (2014). Landscapes of violence: Women surviving family violence in regional and rural Victoria. Geelong, VIC: Deakin University. Retrieved from https:// www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/287040/Landscapes-of-Violenceonline-pdf-version.pdf Harkness, A., & Larkins, J. (2020). Technological approaches to preventing property theft from farms. In A. Harkness (Ed.), Rural crime prevention. London: Routledge. Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime – an empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing. Lazarte, A. (2017). Understanding the drivers of rural vulnerability. Employment working paper no. 14. International Labour Ofce, Employment Policy Department. Retrieved from https://www. ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/–ed_emp/documents/publication/wcms_568736.pdf Matthews, R. A. (2010). The construction of ‘So What?’ criminology: A realist analysis. Crime, Law and Social Change, 54(2), 125–140. Mawby, R. I., & Walklate, S. (1994). Critical victimology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Miers, D. (1990). Positivist victimology: A critique part 2: Critical victimology. International Review of Victimology, 1(3), 219–230. Mill, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press. National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book. (2021). People living in rural and remote communities. Retrieved from https://dfvbenchbook.aija.org.au/vulnerable-groups/peopleliving-in-regional-rural-and-remote-communities/ Petersson, J.,  & Thunberg, S. (2021). Vulnerability factors among women victimized by intimate partner violence and the presence of children. Journal of Family Violence, 37, 1057–1069. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-95057 Potter, H. (2015). Intersectionality and criminology: Disrupting and revolutionizing studies of crime. London: Routledge. Storey, J. E. (2020). Risk factors for elder abuse and neglect: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 50. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S1359178918303471 Van Dijk, J. J., & Steinmetz, C. H. (1983). Victimization surveys: Beyond measuring the volume of crime. Victimology, 8(1–2), 291–309. Walklate, S. (1989). Victimology: The victim and the criminal justice process. London: Unwin Hyman. Walklate, S. (1990). Researching victims of crime: Critical victimology. Social Justice, 17(3), 25–42. Young, J. (2011). Criminological imagination. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Youngson, N., Saxton, M, Jafe, P. G., Chiodo, D., Dawson, M., & Straatman, A.-L. (2021). Challenges in risk assessment with rural domestic violence victims: Implications for practice. Journal of Family Violence, 36, 537–550.

INDEX

Note: Page numbers in italics indicate a fgure and page numbers in bold indicate a table on the corresponding page. AAC (Augmentative and Alternative Communication) 97–98 ableism 87–88, 92, 98–99 ableist hierarchy of victims 87–88, 92, 99 Aboriginal Heritage Act (1972) 189–190 Aboriginal people: forced assimilation 107; mistreatment of older 106–107; Rio Tinto destruction of Juukan Gorge cave system 189–190 access: barriers to help-seeking 9; defnition of term 31; to policing and other services 135–136; research challenges 23; see also barriers to accessing services access to justice 4–6, 27–35; described 31; Indigenous people 34; legal representation 195; people with disabilities 33–34, 83–92; rural victims 31–35; uses of phrase 85 acquaintanceship, cohesion and density of 28 action-based practice 244 action research 244–245, 247 adversarial system of justice 85 advocacy for victims 8; essentials for efective in rural domains 229–230; mobile units 23; policy changes and implications 232–233 advocates see victim advocates aged care settings 101, 104–105, 107 aggravated assault victimisation 54–55, 54–55

agri-business, growth in developing nations 119–120 agricultural crime 5, 257; see also farm crime agriculture: changing nature of production in developed nations 118–119; European food system 119; as low wage sector 117; migrant labour in United Kingdom 121–123; modern slavery in 6, 117–131 Albanese, Jay 29 alternative subcultures, as hate crime victims 154–155 Amazon 165, 167, 174, 179–181 American Bar Association 195 Animal Liberation (Singer) 178 animals, as victims 133, 178–181, 258 anonymity, lack of 226–227 Antarctica 3 architectural theft 184 assaults: aggravated assault victimisation 54–55, 54–55; non-fatal assault trends across rural/urban divide 53–55, 54–55; sexual (see sexual assault); see also interpersonal violence asylum seekers, as hate crime targets 151 Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) 97–98 barriers to accessing services 225–228; alternative mechanisms for ofsetting 231–232; cultural 226–227; distance

268

Index

from support services 225; individual 227–228 battered women’s shelters 72 battered women syndrome 80–81 beard cutting as hate crime in Amish community (case study) 160–162 Benson, Sara 75 Berg, Mark T. 51 Biden, Joe 168 biodiversity 165, 170 biopiracy 164 Black feminist theory 73 Black people: barriers to accessing services 227; driving while black 34 blaming victims 32, 150, 226, 229, 238–240 Blundell, Barbara 100 Boko Haram 120 Bolsonaro, Jair 180 bonding capital 215–216 bonding ties 215 bribery 133, 181 bridging ties 215 Bronkhorst, Theo 179 Brzezinski, Ignacy 131 built environment, as rural victim 7–8, 177–190, 257–258; rural heritage victims 183–185 Byrne, Richard 117 Camilleri, Marg 83 capacity building 247 capitalism: climate change and 169–170; green 168 case study: barriers to reporting victimisation for rural victims with complex communication needs 97–99; battered women syndrome 80–81; beard cutting as hate crime in Amish community 160–162; crime triangle applied to Indigenous rural elder abuse 114–116; farm worker victimisation by organised criminal gang in the United Kingdom 129–131; fres 174–176; implementing SafeGrowth in North Battleford and Roma 252–254; lethality beyond the cityscape 65–67, 66; metal rods in corn 145–147; policing rural victims in the Pacifc island state of Tuvalu 220–222; Rio Tinto destruction of Juukan Gorge cave system 189–190; South Dakota’s rural attorney recruitment program 207–209; victim advocacy in Delta Region of the United States 237–240

categorical contagion 4 CDC WONDER 52 Ceccato, Vania 38 Cecil the lion 178 Chicago School 263; Early 56–57 child labour 121 child slavery 121 child victim 200, 208 Chodakowicz, Julianna 131 civic community thesis 59 civil legal system 199–200 climate change see climate crisis climate change adaptation 164 climate crisis 7, 163–176; action against climate inaction 168–171; agriculture and 118; capitalism and 169–170; case study 174–176; communities in peril 165–167; denial 175; ecocide 163, 165, 170–171; impact on communities 182–183; migration resulting from 121, 182; nature of changes 163–164; non-human rights 177–178; politics and 168–169; response to 164, 183; role of state 167–168; sectional self-interest and 168–169; urgency linked to geography 169–170 climate justice, rurality and 7, 165–168 coercive control 233; battered women syndrome 80–81; trafcked people 126 cognitive impairment 87–89, 92, 97–98, 100–101 collaborative governance 247 collective efcacy 245, 247–248 communication issues 84, 88, 97–99 Communities that Care (Australia) 241 community-level responses 241–254; case study 252–254; learnings from the rural landscape 246–247; outcomes, limitations and considerations of 245–246; prevention of crime and victimisation in rural communities 243–244; SafeGrowth 244–245, 247 community policing 155–156 community rights 181–183 complex communication needs (CCN) 84, 97–99 concentration of crime 59–60 confdentiality, lack of 227, 229 Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 84–86 corruption 17, 133, 180–181 Country (flm) 68 countryside 117, 137, 145–146, 180, 212–213 COVID-19 pandemic: climate impacts 168; cultural property crime 8; elder

Index

abuse 6; farm crime 6; hate crime 7, 150; male-to-female violence 71–72; modern slavery 6; realities of rural victimisation 4–8; social isolation 225; technology-facilitated violence 5; threat to Indigenous communities 181 crime: dark fgure of 135, 212; defnitions of 29, 39; journey to 60 crime concentration, law of 59 crime prevention see prevention crime rates: homicide rate 65; poverty concentration and 244; reducing 262; sexual, domestic, and intimate partner violence 242; small-island Pacifc states 215; social disorganisation and 57; urban and rural compared 2, 40, 241–244, 252 Crime Severity Index (CSI) 243, 246 crime triangle 103, 103–104, 114–115 Crime Victims’ Rights Act 199 criminality 129, 171, 183, 212, 217 criminal justice: ableist hierarchy of victims 87–88, 92, 99; access (see access to justice); barriers 86–90; legal system (see criminal legal system); perception of 139–140, 140–141; police as gatekeepers to 89; responses 4, 8, 264–265; role of victims in 85 criminal justice responses 4, 8, 264–265; see also police/policing criminal legal system: adversarial 198; lawyers assisting victims outside of 199–202; rural lawyer shortage 197–199; victims’ rights legislation 198–199; see also justice system criminal opportunity structure 59–60 Criminological Imagination 263 criminological theory 87–88, 102–104, 244, 257 criminology: policy and practice reform and responses 263–265; rural critical 262; rural victimology scholarship into the future 256–265 critical criminology 262 critical race theory 73 critical victimology 262 CRPD (Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) 84–86 CSI (Crime Severity Index) 243, 246 cultural barriers, to accessing services 226–227 cultural heritage 177, 179–180, 182–186 cultural property crime 8 cultural risk factors 261 culture of honour thesis 58–59

269

culture of silence 16 cybercrime 41, 242, 264 data collection 16, 20–22, 72, 88, 100, 256 defence counsel 196–197, 203, 207–209 deforestation 140, 163–165, 170, 177, 179–182 DeKeseredy, Walter S. 68 Delta Region of the United States, victim advocacy in (case study) 237–240 deservingness of the victim 32–33 digital violence 72 disability: awareness, lack of 154; Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 84–86; defnitions of 84; Social Model of Disability 86; terminology 85–86; see also people with disabilities discrimination 91, 107, 150, 153–154, 196, 201, 211, 224, 227, 259 domestic violence: legal representation 200–201, 209; protective order 200, 209; rate in rural areas 242; small-island developing states 215–216; under-policing of 17; victim advocacy in Delta Region of the United States 238–239; see also family violence; intimate partner violence Donne, John 30 Donnermeyer, Joseph F. 27 drought 118, 163–166, 169, 261 Durkheim, Émile 215 ecocide 163, 165, 170–171 eco-justice (ecological justice) 7, 163–165 economic drivers, of rural victimisation 6 economic implications of rural ofending 2 education 74–75; interpersonal violence 233; related to support services 230; sex 74 Edwards, Dorothy 76 efcacy, collective 245, 247–248 elder abuse 6, 100–109; in aged care facilities 101; applying criminological theories 102–104; case study 114–116; crime triangle 103, 103–104; description of 100; of Indigenous people 105–107, 114–116; non-prosecution of 197; perpetrators, risk factors and heightened vulnerability 101–102; prevalence 101, 104, 106; preventing 196; reporting 101, 105, 115; response to 107–108; in rural and remote areas 104–105; types 100 Elliot, David 175 Eman, Katja 132

270

Index

Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Albanese) 29 environmental crime 133, 264 environmental harm 165, 168, 177 environmental heritage crimes 185 environmental justice 163, 165, 183 environmental racism 183–184 estate planning 196, 207–209 ethnic minorities, and hate crime 151–152 exploitation: fnancial of older people 104; modern slavery 6, 117–118, 121–127, 131; natural resources 167–168, 170, 182 extinction 165, 170, 176, 179, 181, 185 family law, and legal representation 200–201, 209 family violence: elder abuse 101, 103–104; fear of disclosing 91; legal representation 200; small-island developing states 215–216; victims with disabilities 88–89 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) 180–181 farm crime 6–7, 9, 132–147, 257; access to policing and other services 135–136; levels of 18; metal rods in corn (case study) 145–147; non-reporting of 8–9, 135; organised crime groups (OCGs) 133–134, 137; overview 132; perceptions of crime 137, 139–140, 140–141; reasons to care about 2; reporting 141, 141–142; responses to ofending against farms 136; Slovene National Rural Crime Victimisation Survey 132, 137–142, 140–141; theft 2, 18–19, 31–32, 132–135, 138–139, 141, 241–242, 257, 261; types of onand of-farm ofending 133–134; victim categories 134; worry concerning 19 farm worker victimisation by organised criminal gang in the United Kingdom (case study) 129–131 fatal victimisation trends across rural/urban divide 55–56, 56 fear: defnition 39; dysfunctional 39; functional 39; nature of fear in rural areas 39–41; of retaliation 40, 104, 116, 142, 154, 156; vulnerability hypothesis 42 fear of crime 38–44; conceptual model of 43, 43–44; defnition 39; dependence on individual characteristics 42; environmental component 39; impact of 42–43; individual factors afecting 41–42; nature of fear in rural areas

39–41; precautionary measures 42–43; women’s 42 feminist: Black feminist theory 73; intersectional 73; liberal 68–70, 73; radical 69, 73 feminist theory: Black 73; victims with disabilities 86, 88 Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder 5 fres 163–164, 166, 174–176 First Nations people 7, 17, 105–107, 115–116, 148, 151–153, 169, 232; as hate crime victims 152–153; marginalisation 259 focus group 20–22 folk crimes 133 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 180–181 food production: changing nature in developed nations 118–119; European food system 119; see also agriculture food security 132, 164 forest crime 179–181 fossil fuel industry 167, 170, 175–176 fraud 104, 132–134, 138–139, 196, 208, 242, 264 Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) 123, 129 gemeinschaft-gesellschaft polarity 27–28 gendered violence 5; rural dimensions of 90; victims with disabilities 88–89 gender gap, in ofending 261 gender inequality 69, 73–74 geographic isolation 6, 71, 100, 154, 211, 224–226, 230 GLAA (Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority) 123, 129 global warming: communities in peril 165–167; gendered consequences 166–167; victimology 163–165; see also climate crisis Goldsmith, Zac 178 goths 155 green capitalism 168 green criminology 29, 164, 212 Green Dot Violence Intervention Strategy 76 green revolution 118–119 guardians/guardianship 60; absence of capable 8, 59, 81, 256; of children 208, 254; older rural residents and 102–104, 103, 114–115 gun ownership 71, 226 gun violence 65–66, 81 Gypsies and Travellers, as hate crime victims 151, 155

Index

Haksgaard, Hannah 195 Hale, Rachel 1, 15, 148, 256 Harkness, Alistair 1, 15, 256 harm: concept described 29–30; conceptualising the rural victim 257–259; environmental 163–165, 165, 168, 170, 177; mitigation in rural areas 21; psychological 21; social 21 hate crime 7, 148–162, 242; alternative subcultures 154–155; beard cutting as hate crime in Amish community (case study) 160–162; case study 160–162; defnitions of 148–149; ethnic minorities 151–152; experiences of victimisation 151–155; explanations of 149; First Nations peoples 152–153; LGBTQIA+ people 148, 150–151, 153–154; othering 17, 149, 151–152; people with disabilities 154; prevention of 155–156; psychological impacts 150; race-based 150–151, 154; understanding 148–150 heritage: crime incidents 184–185; cultural 177, 179–180, 182–186; environmental heritage crimes 185; sites 8, 183 Hispanic women, barriers to accessing services 227 Hodgkinson, Tarah 241 homelessness 125, 130, 243 homicide: lethality case study 65–67, 66; trends across rural/urban divide 55–56, 56 homicide rate 65 honour, culture of 58–59 Hope for Justice 130 human trafcking 120, 124–125, 129–131, 180 Humbugging 106 ICC (International Criminal Court) 170 immigrants: barriers to accessing services 227; legal representation for 201 impairment 34, 84–90, 92, 97–98, 100–102 Indigenous people: access to justice 34; community-level responses 247, 252, 254; community rights 181–183; criminal legal system and 199; distrust if mainstream services 115; hate crime 150, 242; life expectancy 105; mistreatment of older 105–107, 114–116; in prison 5; as rural others 213; Small-Island Developing States in the Pacifc (SIDSITP) 215; United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 190; vulnerability 260 informal networks 225, 231–232, 260

271

instrumental theory 137 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 176 International Criminal Court (ICC) 170 interpersonal violence 5, 213, 216, 264; barriers to access services for rural victims 225–228, 231–232; culture of denial 226; farm crime 132, 139, 147; hate crime 149; lack of disclosure 224, 226–227; rural others 213; social support from informal networks as protective factor against 225; support and advocacy 224–234, 238–239; victim advocacy in Delta Region of the United States 238–239; violent victimisation 51–61, 65–67 intersectionality 73 intimate partner violence 69; education concerning 233; legal representation 200; non-reporting 17; policy changes and implications 232–233; rate in rural areas 242; small-island developing states 215–216; victim involvement in research 20; vulnerability factors 259; see also domestic violence; violence against women island criminology 212–216 isolation: geographical 6, 71, 100, 154, 211, 224–226, 230; rurality and 3; social (see social isolation) Johnson, Derrick 208–209 Johnson, Melencia 224 judges 196–198 justice: access (see access to justice); climate 7, 165–168; defnition of 31; eco-justice (ecological justice) 7, 163–165; environmental 163, 165, 183; impediments to justice in the rural 90–92; postcode 91; restorative 31, 222, 245; species 163, 165 justice system: ableist hierarchy of victims 87–88, 92, 99; adversarial 85; barriers 86–90; police as gatekeepers to 89; role of victims in 85; traditional methods 216 just in time management system 119 Juukan Gorge cave system 177, 189–190 Kelly, Liz 69–70 Klein, Renate 76 Kraybill, Donald 161 Krogman, Kirby 208 labour: child 121; expansion of migrant in United Kingdom 121–123; Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA)

272

Index

123, 129; modern slavery in agriculture 117–127, 129, 131; worker enslavement process in United Kingdom 124–125 labour exploitation 121–125, 127; see also modern slavery labour law violations 196, 201 Lange, Jessica 68 Laponi, Lamese 210 Lawrence, Jennifer 68 lawyers: assisting victims outside of the criminal legal system 199–202; involvement in preventing victimhood 196–197; recruiting to rural areas 203–204, 207–209; shortage of ruralbased 8, 195–199 left realism 263 legal support and services 8, 195–209; case study 207–209; civil cases 199–200; lawyer involvement in preventing victimhood 196–197; overview 195–196; potential solutions 202–204; recruiting lawyers to rural areas 203–204, 207–209; shortage of rural lawyers 195–199; victims’ rights 198–199, 203–204 lethality: calculation of 65; urban and rural compared 65–67, 66; of violent victimisation 65–67, 66 LGBTQIA+ people 7, 20, 42, 148, 150–151, 153–154, 264 liberal feminist 68–70, 73 libraries 74–75 Lifestyle Model 256 literacy issues, and elder abuse 102, 114 livestock theft 18–19, 31–32, 133, 135, 138, 242, 257 lobbying 75, 167, 183 localistic model of policing 214 male peer support theory of woman abuse 72 male-to-female violence: continuum of woman abuse 69–70, 70; COVID-19 pandemic 71–72; defnition of 68–70; extent and distribution 70–72; key sources of 71; new directions in policy and practice 74–75; theoretical advancement 72–74; see also violence against women; woman abuse marginalisation 17, 152, 183, 257, 259 Marx, Karl 74 Matthews, Roger 263 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009, US) 161

May, Brian 178 McGrath, Shelly A. 224 measuring rural victimisation 3–4, 15–20; complexities of current measures of rural victimisation 16–19; operationalising ‘rural’ for comparative analysis 19–20; overview 15–16; rural/urban divide 52–53 Merton, Robert 30 Meško, Gorazd 132 metal rods in corn (case study) 145–147 Midwestern Prevention project (United States) 241 migrant labour: expansion in United Kingdom 121–123; see also modern slavery migrants: hate crime victimisation 152; irregular 120–121 migration: climate-induced 166, 169, 182; in West Africa 120–121 mining 3, 18, 30, 121, 163–164, 166–167, 177, 182, 189, 261 minority victims: Amish-on-Amish violence 160–162; in Delta Region of the United States 237; hate crime 151–152; rural heritage victims 183–184; stigmatisation 17; vulnerability 259–261; see also specifc minority groups missing white woman syndrome 33 mobile victim advocacy units 23 modern slavery 6, 117–131; case study 129–131; identifying in United Kingdom 125; impact of 125–126; migrant labour in United Kingdom 121–123; in Nigeria 120–121; organised crime groups (OCGs) 6, 118, 121, 123–124, 126, 129–131; rise in United Kingdom’s agriculture 123; worker enslavement process in United Kingdom 124–125 Modern Slavery Act (2015, UK) 126, 129, 131 Modern Slavery Intelligence Network 131 Moir, Emily 100 Morcombe Bay cockle pickers tragedy 122 Morrison, Scott 175 Mullet, Sam, Sr. 160–161 Mulrooney, Kyle J. D. 15 Naslund, Helen 80–81 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) 52, 55–56 National Crime Survey (NCS) 53

Index

National Crime Victimisation Survey (NCVS) 28, 52–55, 66–67 National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (Australia) 260 National Statement of Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC) 21 National Victimisation Analysis Tool (NVAT) 52, 66 Native Americans 23–24, 33, 152 natural environment: case study 189–190; crimes against 177–190; implications of damages 185–186; rural heritage victims 183–185; as rural victim 7–8, 177–190, 212, 257 Ndlovu, Honest 179 neighbourhood activation 244–245 neutralisation techniques 32 Nicholas, Louise 177 Nigeria: e-waste dumped in 184; modern slavery in 120–121 NIOT (Not In Our Town) movement 156 non-fatal assault trends across rural/urban divide 53–55, 54–55 non-human rights 178–181 non-reporting 4, 8–9, 15–17, 135, 138–139, 141, 141–142; of farm crime 135; reasons for 141, 141–142 Norberg, Rachelle 208 North Battleford (Saskatchewan, Canada) 242–243, 246, 252–253 Not In Our Town (NIOT) movement 156 NVAT (National Victimisation Analysis Tool) 52, 66 OCGs see organised crime groups (OCGs) older people, victimisation of 100–109; see also elder abuse Operation Fort investigation 130 opportunity, theory of 186, 256 organised crime groups (OCGs): farm crime 133–134, 137; modern slavery 6, 118, 121, 123–124, 126, 129–131 othering 17, 149, 151–152 other rural, concept of 211–212 Pacifc criminology 212–216 Paczewska, Justyna 131 Palmer, Walter 178–179 patriarchy/patriarchal attitudes 69, 73, 75, 216, 225–226, 228–229, 233, 262–263 people smugglers 124 people with disabilities 5–6, 83–92; access to justice 33–34, 83–92; case study 97–99; hate crime 149, 154;

273

impediments to justice in the rural 90–92; in prison 5; risk of victimisation 91; rural dimensions 90–92; terminology 85–86; victimological theoretical perspectives 86–88; as victims/survivors of crime 88; vulnerability 42 perception: of crime and criminal justice 139–140, 140–141; of crime and victimisation 137 personal injury lawsuits 200 Petito, Gabby 33 Pinikura people 189 place intersecting vulnerability 259–261 placemaking 245 police culture 213 police/policing 210–222; access to policing 135–136; community policing 155–156; corruption 17; discretionary decisions 89, 214, 216, 222; distrust in 17–18; as gatekeepers to justice system 89; impact of reporting behaviour on response 17; localistic model of policing 214; non-reporting of victimisation 8–9; perceived lack of interest on part of 135; politics of belonging 213–214; response to hate crimes 155–156; response to ofending against farms 136; small-island developing states 214–217, 220–222; use for victim transportation 232 police reported statistics 15–16, 18, 150 police reporting practice 53 politics: of belonging 213–214, 217; climate crisis and 168–169; political events, and hate crime 149–150 pollution 119, 133, 165–166, 168, 170, 176, 182–184 polyvictimisation 70 post-traumatic stress disorder 81 power 211 precautionary measures 42–43 predictors of crime and victimisation 244 prevention: community-level responses 241–254; of crime and victimisation in rural communities 243–244; learnings from the rural landscape 246–247 Pridemore, William Alex 51 prisons, people with disabilities in 5 privilege, and hate crime 149 property crime 8, 132, 138–139, 210, 215–216, 242 prosecutors 196–200, 203–204, 207–208 prostitution 120 protective order 200, 209, 224, 239 psychological abuse 80–81

274

Index

public defender 197, 207 punishment, justice and 31 Puutu Kunti Kurrama people 189 race-based hate crime 150–151, 154 racism: environmental 183–184; hate crime 152–153, 156; Hispanic women 227; service availability and 227; structural 40 radical feminist 69, 73 rational choice theory 135 real estate transactions 196–197, 208–209 religious fundamentalism 226, 229, 238–239 reparation of relationships 8 reporting: non-reporting 4, 8–9, 15–17, 135, 138–139, 141, 141–142; Slovene National Rural Crime Victimisation Survey 139, 141, 141–142; underreporting 6, 16, 40, 259 researching rural victimisation 20–24; action research 244–245, 247; challenges of conducting research in rural areas 22–24; community-based, participatory research design 23; gaining insider status 23; key considerations 20–22; scholarship into the future 256–265 resilience, drivers of 259 resource curse 30 responses to rural victimisation 8, 241–254, 264; see also community-level responses; criminal justice responses restorative justice 31, 222, 245 restraining order 200 retaliation 40, 104, 116, 137, 142, 154, 156, 161 retaliatory ethic 58 Rio Tinto destruction of Juukan Gorge cave system 177, 189–190 rivers, legal protections for 179 Rogers, Ethan M. 51 Roma (Queensland, Australia) 242–243, 246, 252–254 Rome Statute of International Criminal Court 170 routine activities theory: converging elements 102, 256; crime triangle 103, 103–104; elder abuse 102–104; people with disabilities 86; violent victimisation 59–61 rural, defnitions of 3, 15, 19–20, 27–29, 71 rural abject 212

rural area: as hybrid environment 39; meaning of term 38–39; nature of fear in 39–41 Rural Attorney Recruitment Program (South Dakota) 207–209 rural crime: economic implications of 2; reasons to care about 2; see also specifc aspects of rural crime rural crime prevention: communitylevel responses 241–254; of crime and victimisation in rural communities 243–244; learnings from the rural landscape 246–247 rural criminology: policy and practice reform and responses 263–265; rural critical 262; rural victimology scholarship into the future 256–265 rural idyll 2, 30, 35, 38, 40, 133, 152, 212–213 rurality, concepts of 211–212 rural lawyer shortage 8, 195–199 rural others 212–213 rural primitive 3, 68 rural public spaces 17, 60, 69, 152, 160 rural-urban continuum 3, 39, 43, 52–53, 58, 61, 65; see also rural/urban divide rural/urban divide: documenting violence across 52; fatal victimisation trends across 55–56, 56; measuring 52–53; non-fatal assault trends across 53–55, 54–55 rural victimisation see victimisation rural victims see victim(s) SafeGrowth 242, 244–245, 247, 252–254 SandFields Farm 129–130 Saville, Gregory 244 scholarship, victimology 256–265 Scott, John 210 Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme, United Kingdom 122–123 self-reliance, culture of 226 self-reporting surveys 3 sex education 74 sexual assault: campus 201; rate in rural areas 242; shadow of 42; trafcked women 126; victims with disabilities 88–89, 97–98 sexual orientation-based hate crimes 153, 161 sexual violence: continuum of 69–70, 70; on Pitcairn Island 216–217 Shasta County Citizens Against Racism 156

Index

Shepard, Matthew 161 Shepard, Sam 68 SHR (Supplemental Homicide Reports) 52, 55, 66–67 Siamese rosewood trees 179–180 SIDSITP (Small-Island Developing States in the Pacifc) 212–216 Singer, Peter 178 situational prevention 137 slavery: child 121; modern (see modern slavery) slavery, modern 6 slave trade 117 Slovene National Rural Crime Victimisation Survey 132, 137–142, 140–141; crime reporting 139; experience with crime 138–139; overview 137–138; perception of crime and criminal justice 139–140, 140–141; reporting crime 141, 141–142 Small-Island Developing States in the Pacifc (SIDSITP) 212–216 Smith, Kreseda 117 social capital 59, 215–216 social cohesion 28, 244–246 social control 59, 263; informal 16, 53, 57, 135–136, 252 social disorganisation theory 57–58 social ecology 244–245 social impacts, of rural victimisation 2 social isolation 225; of battered women 81; elder abuse 102, 104–105, 108; of trafcked people 125; of victim advocates 230 social media, woman abuse and 72 Social Model of Disability 86 social network 57, 214–216, 226–227, 231, 259 sociocultural isolation 225 socio-technical systems 244–245 South Dakota’s rural attorney recruitment program 207–209 South Pacifc 212–216 spaceless violence 72 spatial disadvantage 98 species justice 163, 165 stalking 72, 86 Stewart-North, Melina 148 stigmatisation 91, 257 Supplemental Homicide Reports (SHR) 52, 55, 66–67 supply chain 6, 118–119, 123, 125–127, 130–131

275

support services: barriers to accessing 225–228, 231–232; limited 21, 115; resourcing and training 9 Sutherland, Tifany 210 technology-facilitated violence 5 theft 186; in aged care facilities 104, 107; architectural 184; auto 244; farm crime 2, 18–19, 31–32, 132–135, 138–139, 141, 241–242, 257, 261; of land and resources 212; petty 243 Thomas, Suzie 177 Tönnies, Ferdinand 28 Torres Strait Islander people 106–107, 189–190 tort 201 tourism, dark 176 trafcking 120–122, 124–126, 129–131, 134, 177, 180 transgender people, as hate crime victims 153 translational criminology 248 trophy hunting 178 True, Jacqui 74 Trump, Donald 150, 167 Tuvalu 220–222, 221 under-reporting 6, 16, 40, 259 Uniform Crime Report (UCR) 28, 52–53, 66 United Kingdom: food prices 119; identifying modern slavery in 125; migrant labour expansion in 121–123; Modern Slavery Act (2015) 126, 129, 131; modern slavery rise in 123; Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme 122–123; worker enslavement process in 124–125 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 190 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 180–181 United Nations Human Rights Council 167 urban-rural continuum see rural-urban continuum urban/rural divide see rural/urban divide utilitarianism 178 Van Doorn, George 148 vehicles, theft of 6 victim(s): of climate crisis 163–176; conceptualising the rural victim 257–259; defnitions of term 29–30; deservingness of 32–33; with disabilities

276

Index

83–92; of farm crime 132–147; of hate crime 148–162; ideal 217, 257–258; legal support and services for 195–204, 207–209; legitimate 258; natural and built environments 177–190; nonhuman 178–181, 257; non-ideal 158, 264; people with disabilities 83–92, 97–99; policing rural 210–222; rural others 213 victim advocates 228–233; challenges faced by 228; ecological factors afecting advocacy work 228–229; informal networks 231–232; organisational afliations 229; relationships with clients 229; role in rural communities 228; victim advocacy in Delta Region of the United States 237–240 victim blaming 32, 150, 226, 229, 238–240 victimisation: common factors 260–261; community-level responses 241–254; contemporary dimensions of rural 1–9; of cultural and built heritage 177; defnitions of term 29–30; diferential risks 256; eco-justice 164–165; farm 186; hate crime 148–156, 160–162; interpersonal violent 51–61; journey to 60; lawyer involvement in preventing victimhood 196–197; measuring rural 15–20; of older rural residents 100–109; perceptions of 137; preventing in rural communities 243–244; realities of rural 4–8; representations of rural 2–4; responses to rural 8, 241–254, 264; risk factors 261; rural heritage victims 183–185; small-island developing states 214–217; structural 242 victimisation surveys 15–16, 20, 52, 132, 137–142, 140–141, 254, 256 victimology: generalist 262; global warming 163–165; need for development of rural 261–263; scholarship into the future 256–265; terminology 1; theories 57, 257 victim service providers: access to 135–136; non-lawyer 195; see also victim advocates

victims’ rights 198–199, 203–204 victim statistics 15–16, 18, 52, 55–56, 150 vigilantism 8 village crime 134 violence against women 68–76; coercive control 18; patriarchal ideology and 226; risk factors 261; theory of universal risk 75; victims with disabilities 88–89; see also male-to-female violence; woman abuse violent victimisation 51–61; case study (lethality beyond the cityscape) 65–67, 66; documenting violence across the rural/urban divide 52; lethality of 65–67, 66; theories of 56–61 vulnerability: defnitions of 259; drivers of 259; place intersecting 159–261 vulnerability hypothesis 42 Warren, Amy 100 Watson, Danielle 210 Where We Call Home series 153–154 White, Rob 163 white-collar on-farm crime 133 wildlife, crimes against 133–134, 177–179, 185 Wilkinson, Derek 129 Winter’s Bone (flm) 68 Wo, James C. 51 woman abuse 69–70, 70; continuum of 69–70, 70; educating rural citizens about 74; male peer support theory of 72; theoretical advancement 72–74 Women’s Land Army 121 worker enslavement process in United Kingdom 124–125 World Bank 17 worry about crime 4–5, 19, 40–41, 139, 140 xenophobia 4, 40, 44 youth crime 242–243, 254 zemiological approach 7