Interfacing with Other Disciplines
A number of academic orientations enrich victim- ology. Researchers who pursue a mental health/ forensic psychology orientation might explore how victims react to their misfortunes. They ask why some injured parties experience
20 CH APT ER 1
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
B O X 1.3 The Social Reaction to Victimization: A Look at the Interplay between Victims, Offenders, and Bystanders
Bystanderology
If a third party is present when an offender confronts his intended victim, this presence of an audience introduces a situational variable or contextual factor that can become the focus of what can be called “bystanderology.”
One or more onlookers were watching in about 70 per- cent of all fights, around 50 percent of all robberies, and almost 30 percent of all rapes and other sexual assaults, according to an analysis of government surveys of victims’ experiences during the 1990s (Planty, 2002).
Individuals who witness a crime in progress as it unfolds right before their eyes may react in essentially two ways. First of all, there is nonintervention: Bystanders may avert their gaze, steer clear of trouble, mind their own business, and not get involved in the dispute. Or they may simply watch, become confused and immobilized, and consequently not do anything to help out. In extreme cases, they may run away, as when shots are fired. Alternatively, onlookers could become engaged and intervene to some degree while a crime is in progress or in its immediate aftermath (see Shotland and Goodstein, 1984; and Takooshian, 2014).
The following example, which took place on a busy big city street, illustrates this spectrum of possibilities, as an onlooker who intervened in behalf of a victim becomes mor- tally wounded himself and then fails to receive any aid from other spectators:
A man angrily confronts a woman and threatens vio- lence. A homeless immigrant who sometimes works as a day laborer comes to her aid and is stabbed. A nearby surveillance camera records how he collapses and lies face down in the gutter for over an hour. Passersby show some curiosity but hurry along. One man lifts the wounded Good Samaritan’s body, sees a pool of blood, and then walks away. Another snaps a photo and then departs. By the time the police are summoned and help arrives, he is dead. (Sulzberger and Meenan, 2010)
Police officers are third parties who have a duty to intervene and can be counted upon to enter the fray in behalf of an innocent person under attack. Bystanders and onlookers have no such duty and may or may not take action as a robber, rapist, or assailant confronts a victim. A typology of possible responses by bystanders could include the fol- lowing categories, ranked in terms of the desirability/unde- sirability of the outcome (making the situation better or worse for the person under attack):
a) Effectively intervene to rescue the victim from harm and also apprehend the apparent offender by making a citizen’s arrest until the police arrive.
b) Minister to the victim after the attack is over by pro- viding physical and emotional first aid until first responders like police officers, emergency medical technicians, and ambulance crews arrive.
c) Scream for help and summon the authorities by calling 911; or at least take pictures that can later be used as evidence.
d) In the aftermath of an attack, come forward and serve as a witness for the prosecution.
e) Do nothing, take no action, look the other way, or melt away due to apathy or indifference; but also some non- interveners may be immobilized by fear.
f) Become a victim; the Good Samaritan who steps in can get injured or killed by the offender.
g) Accidentally injure or kill the victim while carrying out a rescue mission (this disaster can happen when a SWAT team tries to overpower a hostage-taker but the captive is killed during the raid).
h) Intervene in behalf of the wrong party by erroneously sizing up the situation, resulting in the injury or death of the genuine victim. This can happen when uniformed officers mistake an undercover officer for an “armed perpetrator” who is training a gun on a suspect, and they shoot the officer in disguise thinking they are rescuing a victim (a tragic mistake referred to by the military term “friendly fire”)
i) Intentionally join in on the side of the wrongdoer, undermining the victim’s ability to effectively resist and inflicting additional losses and injuries, which may even be fatal (these bystanders who knowingly make things worse have been called “Bad Samaritans”). Bystanders who rally to the side of lawbreakers while a crime is in progress can get swept up into a type of crowd psychology that leads to the looting of stores, mob attacks, lynchings, race riots, and gang rapes.
The social reaction of the bystander(s) may decisively shape the outcome of an attempted crime. The presence of onlookers might cause the would-be offender to back down or cut short his attempt to inflict harm. On the other hand, the existence of an audience might cause both parties to escalate their conflict in order to save face and protect their reputations on the street. This might encourage the aggres- sor to deliver additional wounds in order to demonstrate his prowess, as in clashes between gang members.
When surveyed about whether the presence of a third party helped or worsened the situation, half of all victims reported “neither helped not hurt.” But when bystanders actively interceded, victims judged the impact of their
(Continued)
W H A T I S V I CT I M O LO G Y ? 21
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
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (occa- sionally feeling very frightened long after a danger- ous “fight or flight” situation has passed) while others who suffer through comparable calamities do not. Professionals engaged in therapeutic rela- tionships with patients who endured vicious vio- lence need to discover which crisis intervention techniques work best (see Roberts and Roberts, 2005). Researchers who take an historical perspec- tive trace developments from the past to better understand the present, while those who adopt an economic perspective try to measure individual and collective costs, losses, and expenses that result from criminal activities. The anthropological orientation compares victimization in other societies far away and long ago in order to transcend the limitations of analyses rooted in the here and now. Victimologists
who adopt a sociological perspective develop pro- files (statistical portraits) of the characteristics of people who are harmed, analyze the interactions within the victim–offender relationship, examine the way other people and social institutions (such as the public welfare and health care systems) deal with injured parties, and seek to evaluate the effec- tiveness of new policies and programs. Scholars who apply a legalistic/criminal justice orientation (that focuses on department regulations, Supreme Court decisions, and legislation) explore how vic- tims are supposed to be handled by the police, pro- secutors, defense attorneys, judges, probation officers, and parole boards, and they scrutinize the provisions of recently enacted laws designed to empower victims as the adversary system resolves their cases.
actions as “helpful” more often than as “harmful.” Passersby play a constructive role if they prevent further injuries and recover stolen property, and their intervention is counter- productive if they further enrage the attacker (Hart and Miethe, 2008).
A phenomenon known as the “bystander effect” has been studied extensively by social psychologists, often by simulating emergencies in an experimental setting. Their findings reveal that as the number of bystanders increases, the likelihood that any particular individual will intervene decreases. Also, as the number of onlookers increases, the time that elapses until someone takes action increases. Bystanders are more inclined to get involved if they are directly beseeched for assistance. When bystanders are slow or reluctant to make a move, it may be due to audience inhibition (each person is afraid of being publicly embar- rassed if the effort fails) or because of the diffusion of responsibility (each onlooker assumes someone else will take charge of the situation and take the first step) (see Scroggins, 2009).
Passersby might have a moral duty to be “their brother’s keepers.” But in most states (except in Vermont since 1967, and later Minnesota and Wisconsin), they bear no legal obli- gation to undertake any risks (unless they are police officers, firefighters, and doctors, even when they are off-duty). Civil statutes shielding Good Samaritans from out-of-pocket expenses and lawsuit liability are meant to encourage
individuals to get involved. Criminal laws prevent people from harming one another, but they do not compel indivi- duals to help one another, even if one knows that another person is in imminent danger or has sustained a serious physical injury (Silver, 2012).
Police departments and community organizations sometimes help set up civilian anticrime patrols and neigh- borhood watch committees. On college campuses, rape pre- vention campaigns include efforts to train potential bystanders (especially male athletes and sorority sisters) to step in to creatively outmaneuver aggressive classmates from crossing the line separating drunken partying from carrying out sexual assaults. Ever since the late 1980s, role playing exercises and poster campaigns have urged students, espe- cially incoming freshmen, to “Do something” with slogans like “Don’t be a passive bystander,” “Don’t just stand there,” and “If she can’t stop him, you can” (Winerip, 2014). Inter- vention by onlookers (playing the role of “capable guar- dians”) is counted upon by some victimization prevention strategies (such as alerting the authorities if an alarm goes off). Honoring those who didn’t stand idly by and placed themselves at risk as “heroes” demonstrates the public’s appreciation for coming to the assistance of victims when a crime is in progress (also see Hart and Miethe, 2008; Lateano, Ituarte, and Davies, 2008; Reynald, 2010; Gidcyz et al., 2011; Moynihan, 2011; and Banyard, Arnold, Eckstein, and Stapleton, 2011).
B O X 1.3 (Continued)
22 CH APT ER 1
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
Divisions within the Discipline
Victimology does not have the distinct schools of thought that divide criminologists into opposing camps, probably because this new subdiscipline lacks its own well-developed theories of human behavior. However, in both criminology and vic- timology, political ideologies—conservative, liberal, and radical left/critical/conflict—can play a signifi- cant role in influencing the choice of research topics and in shaping policy recommendations.
The conservative tendency within victimology focuses primarily upon street crimes. A basic tenet of conservative thought is that everyone—both vic- tims and offenders—must be held strictly account- able for their decisions and actions. This translates into an emphasis on self-reliance rather than gov- ernmental assistance. Individuals should strive to take personal responsibility for preventing, avoid- ing, resisting, and recovering from criminal acts and for defending themselves, their families, and their homes from outside attack. In accordance with the crime control model of criminal justice, the primary purpose of the legal system is to protect the innocent from those who want to harm them. As a result, lawbreakers must be punished in proportion to the suffering they inflicted on their victims (the philosophy of retribution, or just deserts). Making criminals pay also is supposed to accomplish the goals of general deterrence (to make a negative example of them, to serve as a warning to other would-be offenders that they should think twice and decide not to break the law), as well as specific deterrence (to teach them a lesson so they won’t repeat this forbidden conduct in the future). Incapacitating predators behind bars keeps them away from the targets they would like to prey upon.
The liberal tendency sees the scope of the field as stretching beyond street crime to include crimi- nal harm inflicted on persons by reckless corporate executives and corrupt officials. A basic theme within liberal thought is to endorse societal inter- vention through the instrument of government to try to ensure fair treatment and to alleviate needless suffering. This position leads to efforts to extend the
“safety net” mechanisms of the welfare state to cushion shocks and losses due to all kinds of mis- fortunes, including crime. To “make the victim whole again,” aid must be available from such pro- grams as state compensation funds, subsidized crime insurance plans, rape crisis centers, and shelters for battered women. Some liberals are enthusiastic about restorative justice experiments that, instead of punishing offenders by imprisoning them, attempt to make wrongdoers pay restitution to their victims so that reconciliation between the two estranged parties might become possible.
The radical left/critical/conflict tendency seeks to demonstrate that the problem of victimization arises from the exploitative and oppressive relations that are pervasive throughout the social system. Therefore, the scope of the field should not be lim- ited simply to the casualties of criminal activity in the streets. Inquiries must be extended to cover the harm inflicted by industrial polluters, owners and managers of hazardous workplaces, fraudulent advertisers, predatory lenders (for example, of mort- gages with deceptive provisions for repayment of the loan), brutally violent law enforcement agen- cies, and discriminatory institutions. Victims might not be particular individuals but whole groups of people, such as factory workers, minority groups, customers, or neighborhood residents. From the radical/critical/conflict perspective, victimology can be faulted for preferring to study the more obvious, less controversial kinds of harmful beha- viors, mostly acts of personal violence and crude theft by desperate individuals, instead of the more fundamental injustices that mar everyday life: the inequitable distribution of wealth and power that results in poverty, malnutrition, homelessness, fam- ily dysfunction, chronic structural unemployment, substance abuse, and misplaced aggression toward potential allies who are in similar circumstances. The legal system and the criminal justice apparatus are considered part of the problem by criminolo- gists as well as victimologists working within this tradition because these institutions that supposedly promote fairness actually primarily safeguard the interests of influential groups and privileged classes (see Birkbeck, 1983; Friedrichs, 1983; Viano, 1983;
W H A T I S V I CT I M O LO G Y ? 23
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
Elias, 1986, 1993; Fattah, 1986, 1990, 1992a, 1992b; Miers, 1989; Reiman, 1990; Walklate, 1991; and Mawby and Walklate, 1993).
WHAT VICTIMOLOGISTS DO
The current parameters of the field are evident in the kinds of questions victimologists try to answer. In general, these questions transcend the basics about “who, how, where, and when,” and tackle the questions of “why?” and “what can be done?”- Victimologists explore not only the interactions between victims and offenders, but also victims and the criminal justice system as well as victims and the larger society.
A selection of some intriguing and imaginative studies that illustrate the kinds of issues concerning offender–victim relationships addressed by research- ers over the decades appears in Box 1.4.
Victimologists, like all researchers, must adopt a critical spirit and a skeptical stance to see where the trail of evidence leads. In the search for truth, myths must be exposed, unfounded charges dismissed, and commonsense notions put to the test. The follow- ing guidelines outline the step-by-step reasoning process that can be followed when carrying out research (see Parsonage, 1979; Birkbeck, 1983; and Burt, 1983).