Some Differences and Issues about Boundaries
Criminology and victimology differ in several important ways. For starters, criminology is several hundred years old, whereas victimology did not emerge until the second half of the twentieth century.
Criminologists agree among themselves that they should limit their studies to illegal activities and should exclude forms of social deviance that do not violate any criminal law. For instance, the unwanted attention and advances that constitute sexual harassment at a workplace are no longer con- sidered to be a private matter or a personal problem but are a type of discrimination that can lead to a lawsuit—but not an arrest. Similarly, certain aspects of bullying are clearly against the law (physical attacks), while other expressions (mocking, teasing, taunting) are upsetting and ought to be discouraged
but are not illegal acts. Both criminologists and vic- timologists would study bullying in those instances where the intentional acts of aggression rise to the level of criminal behavior and result in vandalism or theft, or, worse yet, erupt into violence (such as the object of scorn suffering a severe beating; or conversely, when the pushed-around individual switches roles by bringing a deadly weapon to school to fight back against his tormentors) (see DeGette, Jenson, and Colomy, 2000; Unnever and Cornell, 2003; and Lipkins, 2008).
However, victimologists, unlike criminologists, cannot reach a consensus about the appropriate outer limits of their field. Some victimologists argue that their scientific studies should not be restricted to criminal victimization. They believe that additional sources of harm, anguish, and loss are worthy of systematic analysis: vicious political repression (brutality, torture, execution) carried out by despotic regimes that violate basic human rights; manmade slaughters (such as wars and geno- cide); natural disasters (such as floods and earth- quakes); and maybe even sheer accidents (like meltdowns of nuclear power plants). There are vic- tims of cancer, famines, ethnic cleansing, and tor- ture who suffer in similar ways to people injured in crimes. The common thread would be to under- stand the nature of tribulations and travails, and the consistent goal would be to develop effective strat- egies for short-run relief as well as long-term solu- tions to alleviate emotional and physical pain stemming from all kinds of calamities.
However, the majority of victimologists believe that their studies should remain focused on criminal victimization so that there are precise, readily identi- fiable limits and clear directions for further research and theorizing. Actually, criminal victimization may not be more serious (financially), more injurious (medically), or more traumatic and longer lasting (emotionally) than other types of harm. But it is necessary to rein in the boundaries of the field in order to make it manageable for the practical purposes of holding conferences, publishing journals, writing textbooks, and teaching college courses. (For the pros and cons of these alternative visions of what the scope of victimology ought to be, see
W H A T I S V I CT I M O LO G Y ? 19
9781337027786, Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology, Ninth Edition, Karmen – © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization.
F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S
Schafer, 1968; Viano, 1976, 1983, and 1990a; Galaway and Hudson, 1981; Flynn, 1982; Scherer, 1982; Schneider, 1982; Friedrichs, 1983; Elias, 1986; Fattah, 1991; and Dussich, 2009b.)
The dividing line between victimology and mainstream criminology is not always clear-cut. Invariably, the two fields overlap. Historically, much of criminology can be characterized as offen- derology because of its preoccupation with the reasons why criminals behave as they do, a focus on the wrongdoers’ personal motives and the underlying root causes of their antisocial behavior, and whether punishment or treatment will make them stop. Lawbreakers always have been under a spotlight while the people they harmed remained shadowy figures on the fringes. But now victimol- ogy enriches criminology by yielding a more bal- anced and comprehensive approach that sheds light on both parties and their interactions.
Another way to differentiate the priorities of criminology versus victimology is to examine the social reaction to crime as opposed to the social reaction to victimization.
Once again, it is difficult to try to draw a sharp line between what issues criminologists should explore in contrast to what parallel or comparable topics victimologists should scrutinize. Yet such an exercise might be worthwhile because it helps clar- ify how the two fields have different focuses and also points to areas where research about victims and victimization remains sparse.
Since the offender is of primary interest to criminologists, analyzing the social reaction to law- breaking might include issues like the public’s willingness to pay for increased criminal justice expenses (hiring more police officers, supplying them with more powerful weaponry, and building more prisons in contrast to investing in job training, drug treatment, and inmate reentry programs) and the degree of voter support for tough new laws or for stiffening existing penalties (such as “three strikes” legislation or expanded use of electronic monitoring) or for police crackdowns (zero toler- ance campaigns). The focus remains on the wrong- doers and how to best handle them, whether through punishment or rehabilitation. Long-term
crime prevention strategies that criminologists propose and debate include efforts to eradicate the social roots of street crime, such as poverty, unemployment, failing schools, and dysfunctional families.
For victimology, the emphasis shifts to the public’s reaction to the plight of injured parties. Consequently, researching the social reaction to victimization translates to examining the degree of voter support for victims’ rights initiatives and the willingness of taxpayers to earmark revenue for government-run assistance programs and compen- sation funds. Also of great interest are the many self- help and direct aid projects set up by former vic- tims, such as child search organizations, shelters for battered women, crisis centers for rape victims, and similar advocacy organizations. Another dimension of the social reaction is the many steps fearful indi- viduals might undertake to reduce their own risks of becoming targets. These victimization prevention efforts on a personal level (in contrast to crime prevention efforts on a community or societal level) include taking self-defense classes and buying guns for self-protection, purchasing antitheft devices (such as burglar and car alarms), and buying insurance policies for reimbursement of crime-inflicted losses (life, health, home, and car insurance as well as for identity theft and fraud protection).
One of the most intriguing aspects of the social reaction to lawbreaking behavior is how often and in what manner eyewitnesses respond while a crime is in progress. Criminology and victimology overlap whenever researchers focus upon the interaction between offenders, their intended victims, and onlookers, an emerging area of study that could be referred to as bystanderology, to coin a term (see Box 1.3).