ABSTRACT
Victimology, the study of victims of crime and their experiences, has garnered increasing attention in criminology and social sciences. This paper, therefore, examines the concept of victimology in relation to one major undeniable fact: that support systems play a very significant role in lessening the blow of victimization. Victims of crime thus go through a myriad of issues, which range from physical injury to psychological trauma, and at the same time, the socio-economic repercussions. Informed support systems, both formal and informal, are important in facilitating victim recovery. This abstract discusses the various types of support systems available to victims, their importance to victims in re-establishing feeling and perceptions of safety, providing comfort and emotional relief in distressing times, and facilitating access to justice and empowerment in re-establishing life after victimization.
KEYWORDS
Victimology, Victim support, Victim assistance, Victim rights Trauma support, Victim advocacy, Restorative justice, Crime victims, Psychological support, Legal support for victims, Victim compensation, Victim-blaming, Crisis intervention, Victim impact statements, Victim services, Victim-centered approaches, Empowerment of victims, Trauma recovery, Community support for victims, Victim-offender mediation
INTRODUCTION
The concept of victimology is not novel. In fact, Benjamin Mendelsohn coined ‘victimology’ in 1947 for the scientific study of the victims of crime. Victimology is usually considered a subfield of criminology and the two fields do share a lot in common. From a more technical perspective, victimology can be defined as the science or art of studying the etiology or causes of victimization, its consequences, the adjustments, and accommodations that are made for it by the criminal justice system, and the different ways by which other elements in society deal with the victims of crime (that includes especially the media).[1]
The History of Victimology: Before the Victims’ Rights Movement
Victimology has characterized many changes throughout history as a branch of science dedicated to the study of experiences, rights, and structures of victim support pertaining to crime victims. Societies throughout history, transcending cultural backgrounds, worked on their own concepts of victimology and the victims’ movement prior to the establishment of formal victimology and the victims’ rights movement.[2]
Historically, victim treatment had depended upon the set of norms in every society, religious beliefs, and legal systems that characterized various civilizations. The victim of a crime was often viewed historically as requiring his atonement or redress from none other than the sinner himself or his group in society. For instance, ancient Babylonian law made provisions for a victim of theft or injury to seek compensation.
Victimization during medieval times in Europe was typically framed within religious or moral contexts, although religious doctrines might have shaped the view of restitution or retribution to some extent. As a distinct field of study, victimology began to take a clearer shape only in the mid-20th century.
It was not until the work of scholars such as Benjamin Mendelsohn and Hans von Hentig in the 1940s and 1950s that victimology was really formalized. These two experts conducted the very first studies about victim and offender characteristics and behaviors. Their work delved into the details of the psychological, social, and legal dimensions of victimization.[3]
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
Understanding Victimization: The various types of victimizations people are exposed or subjected to physically, emotionally, financially, and socially through crime and other forms of trauma.
Identification of Risk Factors: Establish the various risk factors that aggravate victimization and analyze them with respect to socioeconomic characteristics, geographies, personal behavior, and circumstances of situations.
Psychological and Social Impacts: The psychological and social impacts of victimization at both individual and community levels include recent traumatization, fear, stigmatization, and rending apart of personal and social relationships.
Examining Legal and Justice Systems: The legal and justice systems will be investigated with respect to their effectiveness in delivering support and justice to victims through legal redress, victim compensation, and the role of victim impact statements in sentencing.
Developing Support Systems: Design victim support systems, including support, test, crisis intervention, counseling, and community-based advocacy and institution of support networks for recuperation and empowerment.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In our research, we applied a mixed-methods methodology to fully investigate all the multi-dimensional aspects of our research questions. Our approach incorporated both qualitative and quantitative methods so that findings can be triangulated for a more in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. By combining these approaches, our research methodology facilitated a comprehensive exploration of the research topic, enhancing the validity and reliability of our findings.
CAUSES OF VICTIMIZATION
One of the first aspects that scholars commenced having a look at changed into the position the victim himself had performed within the commission of the crime. Offender-focused crime theories concentrate on the offender in isolation; however, crime victimization typically involves at least two persons, and the criminal event could be the result of a certain dynamic between those two human beings. Which personal traits, which kinds of behaviours at the side of the sufferer, effect the danger of becoming a victim of a crime? Early victimologists like Benjamin Mendelsohn, Hansvon Hentig, Marvin Wolfgang, Stephen Schafer and Menachem Amir studied which behavioural, psychological and biological factors determined a person’s proneness to crime victimization and how his behavior related to the degree of culpability in the criminal event
The result was often a typology ranging from victims who were completely innocent to victims who were actually more blameworthy than the person who committed the crime. Some of these primary studies had a negative, victim-blaming connotation, suggesting that victims were largely responsible for their own victimization.
Modern-day studies have largely moved away from investigating the degree to which the victim can be held responsible for his own victimization and have tried to come up with theories that explain victimization without necessarily placing blame upon the victim.
3 MODERN THEORIES OF VICTIMOLOGY
Victim Precipitation Theory
The victim precipitation theory suggests that crime is precipitated by some characteristic or characteristics of the victim. For example, a criminal could attack a victim simply because said victim is of a certain ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity.
This theory does not only involve hate crimes directed at specific groups of people. It might also involve occupations or activities. For example, a political activist may be targeted by someone opposed to his or her views. A person may target a recently promoted employee if he or she feels they deserved the promotion.[4]
Lifestyle Theory
In the view of the lifestyle theory, some individuals become crime victims due to their lifestyles and the choices they make. A person who is addicted to gambling or other substances may be seen or treated as an “easy victim” by a con artist.[5]
Other lifestyle characteristics that can lead to victimization include walking alone at night in a bad part of town, displaying expensive jewelry, failing to lock doors, and associating with known criminals.
Deviant Place Theory
There is some overlap between the lifestyle theory and the deviant place theory. The deviant place theory holds that an individual has a much greater chance of becoming the victim of a crime when he or she is exposed to dangerous areas. In other words, a mugger is more likely to target a person walking alone after dark in a bad neighborhood. The more frequently a person visits bad parts of town where violent crime is prevalent, the greater the risk for victimization.
There is also a bit of divergence between the deviant place theory and socioeconomic approaches to victimization. Poor households are more likely to be located in or around unsafe parts of town, and persons from poor socioeconomic backgrounds have a decreased capacity to move away from unsafe areas.
Remedial Measures to Victim’s Empowerment
Over a period of time, the following measures have been initiated in India for empowerment of victims of crime and human rights violations:
Legislative and Administrative Measures
i) Victims Compensation in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 u/s 357-59
Section 357(1) concerns itself with the grant of compensation out of the fine imposed on the offender at the time of sentencing the convict. Sub-clause 1(a) of Section 357 empowers a criminal court to indemnify the prosecuting agency against expenses incurred in the prosecution by way of fine imposed on the convict.
Sub-Clause 1(b) of Section 357 entitles the court to award compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence to the victim but this is subject to the condition that compensation must be recoverable by the victim in a civil court. This condition i.e. the word “recoverable” may be construed in two ways:
1. That the victim is entitled to sue the offender for damages in a civil court and that the
offender is liable to pay,
2. That the offender had the capacity to pay the compensation.
Section-358 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides for payment of compensation upto Rs. 100/- to persons groundlessly arrested. While sub-clause of Section 359 of the criminal procedure code, 1973 empowers a court to award costs in non-cognisable cases to the complainant who is generally a victim of the crime, from the offender, providing further that if the offender did not pay costs as ordered, he shall suffer simple imprisonment up to 30 days.
The recent amendment in the of the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2008 has provided long debated issue of victims‟ compensation scheme. Besides victims compensation scheme the CrPC amendment Act has also empowered the victims to engage an advocate of his choice with the permission of the court to assess the prosecution (Section-24). This lawyer will also be authorised to present separate arguments, examine witnesses and produced evidence if permitted by the court. This aside, the victim may file an appeal against an acquittal of the accused, conviction for a lesser offence or the award of an inadequate sentence (Section-372).
These provisions have given a legitimate space to the victims in the Criminal Justice System.
In crux the following are the salient features of the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment)
Act, 2008:
1) “Section 357a. (1) every state government in co-ordination with the central government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose overcompensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.
2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section(1).
(3) If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied, that the compensation awarded under Section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated, it may make recommendation for compensation.
4) Where the offender is not traced or identified, but the victim is identified, and where no trial takes place, the victim or his dependents may make an application to the State or the District Legal Services Authority for award of compensation.
5) On receipt of such recommendations or on the application under sub-section (4) the State or the District Legal Services Authority shall, after due enquiry award adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within two months.
6) The State or the District Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, to alleviate the suffering of the victim, may order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be made available free of cost on the certificate of the police officer not below the rank of the officer in charge of the police station or a Magistrate of the area concerned, or any other interim relief as the appropriate authority deems fit.”
Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010
The Prevention of Torture Bill (passed by Lok Sabha without any debate on 6 May 2010 and Rajya Sabha referred the Bill to a select committee on August 31, 2010), in its present form, is being dubbed by the commentators as the “ Sanction of Torture Bill”. The critique of the proposed bill is made on mainly on two aspects-definition of torture and weak redressal mechanism; and lack of compensatory provisions for the survivors of torture and their families.
SUGGESTIONS
Here are some suggestions related to victimology and support systems:
- Enhance Victim Awareness Programs: Develop and implement educational programs aimed at increasing public awareness about victim rights, available support services, and the impact of victimization on individuals and communities.
- Strengthen Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Foster partnerships between law enforcement, healthcare providers, social services, and community organizations to ensure comprehensive support for victims, integrating various expertise and resources.
- Expand Victim Support Services: Increase funding and resources for victim support services such as crisis intervention, counseling, legal advocacy, and financial assistance, ensuring accessible and responsive care for all victims.
- Promote Victim-Centered Approaches: Implement policies and practices that prioritize the needs and perspectives of victims within the criminal justice system, ensuring their voices are heard and their rights upheld during legal proceedings.
- Improve Data Collection and Research: Invest in research initiatives to better understand the dynamics of victimization, identify emerging trends, and evaluate the effectiveness of support interventions, informing evidence-based policies and practices.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, victimology and its associated support systems represent crucial fields dedicated to understanding, advocating for, and assisting individuals affected by crime and trauma. By examining the diverse impacts of victimization and identifying risk factors, victimology seeks to enhance awareness, prevention, and intervention strategies. Support systems play a pivotal role in providing immediate assistance, psychological support, and legal advocacy to empower victims and help them navigate recovery processes. Moreover, the evolution of victimology underscores the importance of integrating research, policy development, and community engagement to foster resilient, supportive environments. As we continue to advance in these areas, it remains imperative to uphold victim rights, promote societal empathy, and strive for justice, thereby fostering a more compassionate and equitable society for all individuals impacted by victimization.
[1] Introduction to victimology, https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/83271_Chapter_1.pdf
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] 3 Modern Theories of Victimology, https://www.gcu.edu/blog/criminal-justice-government-and-public-administration/3-modern-theories-victimology.
[5] Ibid.