Abstract
The discussion of victimhood should not be limited to victimologists, to criminologists or social scientists, for that matter, as it is a deeply personal yet also cultural phenomenon. According to Mythen (2007: 466, cited in O’Leary, this issue), ‘acquiring the status of victim involves being party to a range of interactions and processes, including identification, labelling and recognition’. To identify as a victim carries both positive and negative consequences for the person or group who has experienced a crime. Recognition as a victim of crime precedes legal intervention and the possibility of redress. However, with the label also come numerous social and psychological burdens as the stereotypical qualities of a victim are less than alluring and include, for example, weakness, vulnerability, frailty and fear. Goffman (1963: 9) was the first to describe such stereotypes and the resultant stigma as ‘the situation of the individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance’. This social construction, combined with the continual politicisation of victimhood and victim’s rights, has reinforced the dichotomy not only between victim and offender but also between victims and survivors, and deserving and undeserving victims. Thus, in addition to the complexities of individual identity and decision making, the social aspects of victimisation further compound the process and are considered from a number of perspectives throughout this issue. In her article, Fohring discusses both personal and social motivation to avoid the victim label, an idea O’Leary expands on in her discussion of claims to victim status based on experiences of collective identity: how communities experience high profile crimes and either accept or resist a ‘spoiled identity’. Lynch and Joyce further this discussion of the victim identity at the community or group level, using Northern Ireland as a case study of a community faced with the same conundrum as individuals: acceptance of the label in order to receive recognition, versus refusal of the label in order to avoid stigmatisation. Like individual victims, particularly in societies experiencing conflict transition, many social groups must compete for recognition and legitimate inclusion into the category of victim.
Innocence is of course a key concept in victimology, and has been since Christie (1986) first discussed the ideal victim. The ideal, or truly innocent, victim may now be envisaged as occupying the uppermost, privileged position in a hierarchy of victims, with each successive downward step reducing innocence and acquiring blame until the fine line between victim and offender becomes blurred beyond recognition (Carrabine et al., 2014). Those finding themselves in this unfortunate situation are not likely to be readily acknowledged as victims, nor receive the accompanying benefits and support. Those considered ‘less than innocent’ are left without acknowledgement of their status and often the burden to prove themselves worthy victims. This phenomenon proves problematic as we now know that there is a substantial overlap between victims and offenders, with those at the greatest risk of both offending and being victimised sharing numerous characteristics – particularly those related to social deprivation. These include: being male, of a young age, belonging to an ethnic minority, being economically deprived, and being an urban dweller (Hindelang, 1976; Posick, 2012).
This pattern is of particular concern in an age witness to rising levels of inequality and social turmoil. Those at the bottom of the societal hierarchy risk further being left behind and unsupported. For example, despite the as yet unexplained and unprecedented fall in crime rates on a near global scale, chronic victims and victims of domestic violence (see Duggan, this issue) have not reaped the benefits of the so-called ‘crime drop’. Only single victims or ‘one offs’ have experienced the greatest decrease, therefore not fundamentally changing the rate of victimisation for the most vulnerable in society (McAra and McVie, 2017). Social support and socioeconomic status have a robust association with disease, death and victimisation: people with greater resources of knowledge, money, power, prestige and social connections are generally better able to avoid risks and to adopt protective strategies. As stigma places people at a substantial social disadvantage with respect to these resources, it increases their exposure to risks and limits access to protective factors (Link and Phelan, 2006).
Therefore, addressing poverty, inequality and vulnerability are actions which may lead to reductions in victimisation and minimise the hierarchy of who is at risk. Targeting whole communities in this manner will be effective in some cases, but not all. For example, Hall (this issue) discusses the provision of support now provided at a community level in England and Wales where a more individualised assessment of victims’ needs is rejected in favour of broad classifications said to encapsulate most shades of need (Ministry of Justice, 2012). Despite the assumption that those most in need of support can be identified through the seriousness of the crime, re-victimisation, and social and personal circumstances, this is only weakly supported by research. Hall goes on to identify a hierarchy in support provision, between victims who appear to merit ‘national’ attention (homicide survivors, victims of human trafficking, victims of rape, and victims of domestic and sexual violence) and those who are local priorities (almost all others). Such traditional views of victims and victimology are largely based on conventional constructions of crime (Skinnider, 2011: 2) and often ignore those further down the hierarchy. White (this issue) identifies a further group of victims often left out of the discourse, namely victims of environmental harm. Public interest in this area is however growing, and environmental litigation has been used to establish future generations as victims of environmental crime, with the victims also including the environment and non-human biota. However, the success of such litigation is contingent upon where cases are tried and under what circumstances (Mehta, 2009; Preston, 2011; McGrath, 2008; cited in White, this issue).
Significant advancements are being made in victim-focused legislation and policy, both nationally and across the EU (for instance, the Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime). Hence a closer examination of how criminology and criminal justice institutions understand and represent victims of crime and victimhood is of utmost importance. Encouraging is the appearance of groups of those most often victimised, fighting for rights and recognition of wrongdoing. Women, LGBTQ, African Americans, refugees and migrants are all forcing the recognition of their collective victimisation whilst also driving deeper consideration around the diversity of the crime experience. Maintaining this momentum and keeping the focus on victims is now also a priority as there is growing evidence that academic criminology, at least, is turning away from victims as the focus turns to issues of policing and cybercrime. Even the Oxford Handbook of Criminology (Liebling et al., 2017) no longer has a single chapter dedicated to victims of crime. Hence the focus of this issue is to reassert the importance of research into victim stigma, identity and hierarchy, and to keep victimology from the bottom of a different hierarchy within criminology and the social sciences more broadly.