Victimisation of People in Power: The Victim Group Most Vulnerable to Identity Theft - Essay Example

? Victimisation of People in Power: The Victim Group Most Vulnerable to Identity Theft Essay of Submission Introduction The criminal justice system is one of the governmental branches that is heavily scrutinised by all political sectors. Victim supporters, feminists, civil rights advocates, and conventional crime control supporters—criticise its rules and processes. Recently, even some authorities who lead its departments and control its everyday activities have agreed with the critics, demanding for reform (Tonry, 2009). Yet, they firmly disagree over how to change the institution. The agreement among the professionals who place emphasis on the concerns of victims is that the criminal justice system is inefficient. It fails to satisfy the victims’ needs and demands. Challenging difficulties continue, and the condemnations of the institution expressed over the years are still present nowadays. Law enforcers are the criminal justice authorities that victims encounter at the onset. Law enforces could quickly help the victim and give whatever assistance is necessary. They could capture the criminal and promptly gather evidence that will be used in trial. They may recover stolen properties grabbed by the thieves and quickly bring these properties back to the real owner. Meanwhile, the victim, who is a major witness for the government, must be safeguarded from retaliations and threats. After verdict, the opinion of the victim about a just decision may be completely made public (Walklate, 2007). The judge may give the punishment that would complement the victim’s demands with the demands of the community and the needs of the thief. Correctional officials may ensure that the parolee, prisoner, or probationer does not assault or pester the individual whose grievance activated the mechanism of the criminal justice system (Tonry, 2009). However, these ‘ideal’ scenarios often do not happen. Instead of receiving sympathy from authorities and supportive units from departments, victims may be frustrated by how they are treated by these supposedly criminal justice professionals. This essay discusses the victimisation of people in power. The discussion includes the following issues: overview of the problem; legal status of the victim group; the latest official statistics on extent of the problems faced by the victim group; news media coverage; nature and effectiveness of policy interventions; empirical research findings from journals and official reports; and key recommendations. The main objective of this essay is to determine whether victimised people in power receive fair and sympathetic treatment from the criminal justice system, or whether the policy interventions regarding this matter are effective in preventing their victimisation. An Overview of the Problem Even though several kinds of victimisation framing highlight the role of people in power in victimising those belonging to the lower class, there are also analyses that demonstrate how the upper class or people in power is being victimised by those underneath them. The issue of victimisation of the elite by the poor usually appears in media reports (Allen, 2011). However, studies show that people in power are prone to become victims of identity theft. Identity theft is the specific crime that is widespread among the upper class. Generally, identity theft is an offence which can happen to anybody (Roberson, 2008). In spite of the fact that identity theft is unselective as regards its victims, specific people seem to be more vulnerable to be victimised by this criminal act. Keith Anderson carried out a research to determine whether specific people are in fact more prone to be victimised by identity theft (Letschert & van Dijk, 2011, p. 162): “The risks faced by consumers do differ, and these differences may manifest themselves in differences across groups with different demographic characteristics.” Anderson outlines several aspects which could heighten the vulnerability to identity-theft victimisation for specific people. He hypothesises that aspects like being in a powerful position, having higher earnings, and being involved in more dealings, could make an individual more prone to identity-theft victimisation (Letschert & van Dijk, 2011). He reaches a conclusion that “[t]he likelihood that a person will be a victim of identity theft does appear to be related to demographics,” (Allen, 2011, p. 237) specifying as important features social class or status, age, gender, and level of income (Letschert & van Dijk, 2011, p. 163): “Consumers with higher levels of income are more likely to be victims of ID theft (….). Similarly, those with more education may be somewhat more likely to be victims.” Hence, it is important to determine the origin of this problem. Victory Lustig, who was born to middle-class parents in Czechoslovakia in the latter part of the 19th century, became widely known as “the man who sold the Eiffel Tower” (Roberson, 2008, p. 12). He was regarded the “king of the confidence men”, (Roberson, 2008, p. 12) was believed to have used roughly forty-five code names, and was fluent in many languages. He was caught more than fifty times in the U.S. alone. In 1925, while in France, Lustig was informed that Paris was having difficulties preserving the Eiffel Tower, and it may have to be taken down. Lustig hired a falsifier to create counterfeit French government notepad. Making use of the notepad, he requested the presence of the top scrap-metal traders in France at a gathering in one of the most popular hotels in France, Hotel de Crillon (Roberson, 2008, p. 12). At the gathering, he presented himself as a powerful individual—the deputy director-general of the Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs. He asked the traders to buy the tower. Lustig was successful; he sold the tower and even received a kickback. Usually, there is the incorrect idea that identity theft is an outcome of computer and information era. In fact, there were already reports of identity theft in ancient times, and most of its victims were powerful individuals. For instance, people attempted to steal the identity of Portugal’s King Sebastian in the 14th century, and in the 15th century there were people who introduced themselves as the Holy Father (Whitley & Hosein, 2009). Identity theft cases are merely fraud and theft expanded by the use of personal information and stealing. Although people in power have always been prone to identity theft, technological developments have facilitated the gathering of personal information. This development has considerably escalated the prevalence of the crime. Legal Status of the Victim Group Identity theft has several repercussions for the basic legal rights of people in power and everybody else, as stated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The legal rights of this victim group are as follows (European Commission, 2012, p. 19): (1) right to a fair trial and appropriate solution—this right is directly associated with victim protection; (2) consumer safety—personal information could be obtained from offline and online shopping and could be misused; (3) right to property—this is involved in instances where belongings or property is the aim of the associated crime; (4) respect for family and personal life and protection of private information—identity theft and associated offences indicate the misuse of personal information and a disrespect for personal life; and (6) right to security and liberty—identity theft and associated offences have an adverse effect on the safety of European people. In the United Kingdom, potential victims of identity theft, particularly people in power, are protected by four major laws. The 1968 Theft Act covers burglary, robbery, and theft, and because unlawfully taking the identity of another person is considered a ‘property crime’, guilty parties can be punished under this law (Biegelman, 2009). The 1998 Data Protection Act requires that personal data like family records, medical records, financial documents, sexual orientation, and ethnic affiliation cannot be disclosed. The 2006 Identity Cards Act facilitated the creation of the National Identity Register which releases passports and IDs (Biegelman, 2009; Roberson, 2008). This Act requires background checks to confirm the veracity of gathered information and verifies the person’s identity. And the 2006 Fraud Act prohibits ‘pharming’, counterfeiting information, and ‘phishing’, which is the unlawful acquisition of virtual private data, such as passwords, usernames (Whitley & Hosein, 2009). Latest Statistics In 2007, identity theft was classified as the most rapidly growing criminal act in the UK. In 2008, 86 per cent of citizens admitted that identity theft was their main security concern (Biegelman, 2009, p. 104). However, identity theft is a quite new occurrence in the UK. A large number of citizens do not know how to safeguard themselves from identity theft or how to respond if they become victim to it. As stated in the 2012 report of the European Commission (2012, p. 57): In 2009, representative of the British population, 25% of the respondents indicated that they had been a victim of identity fraud. The higher incidence of cases in the UK is generally explained by the fact that there are no official identification numbers in the UK and that a variety of documents are used to prove a person’s identity. Property-owners in the UK are being advised to be vigilant and safeguard themselves from identity theft which is rising in the country with an approximated four million victims. Latest information reveals that the UK’s hotspot for identity theft is London’s East Ham (Property Wire, 2013, para 1-2). The crime was also widespread in Enfield, Lewisham, Ilford, Stratford, Cheapside, Bexleyheath, and Romford. Besides London, Cheshire is also severely affected by identity theft, with “13 fraud attempts for every 10,000 adults, more than three times the national average” (Property Wire, 2013, para 3). Still, companies are not acting appropriately to safeguard important personal data, whether through restricting what is stored on employee computer units or encrypting. In spite of growing public awareness of the nature of identity theft, its potential victims, and its impact, numerous companies remain complacent, according to the head of Financial Crime and Intelligence for the Financial Services Advisory (FSA) (Biegelman, 2009). News Media Coverage News media coverage in the UK adequately informs the country’s citizens. And most of the time, the victims that were shown in these media reports were people of stature. For instance, a report by Jessica Winch of The Telegraph describes how a British businessman and a project manager were victimised by identity theft. These people are now experiencing financial difficulties due to their victimisation (Winch, 2013). However, the most noticeable aspect of identity theft and other crimes committed against people in power in the media is their common lack of importance and popularity compared to ‘usual’ crimes of sexual and interpersonal violence. This evident absence of media attention can be attributed to the concepts of blame and newsworthiness (Tonry, 2009). Not like numerous ‘usual’ crimes, identity theft is usually morally vague in relation to victim, offender and crime. While usual crimes essentially involve a certain extent of contact between criminal and victim, victims of identity theft may never really come into contact with the criminal and, furthermore, may never find out they have fallen prey, for instance, in instances of large-scale identity fraud. Yet, even if both victim and criminal are obviously recognisable, the favoured image of the media of the ‘perfect victim’ can be very hard to determine (Letschert & van Dijk, 2011). Victims of identity theft may be viewed as somewhat blameworthy for doing risky or irrational moves and, consequently, gain minor attention in the media. Because of the difficulty of proving and the scattered nature of the injury brought about by identity theft, this crime does not provoke the same intensity of moral outrage and fear as crimes of interpersonal violence (Tonry, 2009). News media coverage reinforces the silencing of moral uproar and hampers emotional attachment to victims of this crime. Nature and Effectiveness of Policy Interventions Policymakers in the UK have broadly dealt with the victims of identity theft by ratifying laws to identify the crime, determine punishments for criminals, and enhance protection to victims. Contrary to the ‘broad-brush’ programmes of traditional crime-prevention policies, the recent decades have witnessed growing recognition of the importance of highly specialised or focused work. Known as ‘situational crime prevention,’ (Tonry, 2009, p. 263) this technique highlights approaches aimed at very particular types of crime that require the development, supervision, or handling of the immediate setting in a methodical and stable way in order to lessen the chances for criminal act and heighten its risks as recognised by a broad array of criminals. Based on rational choice theory, the rationale of situational crime prevention indicates that the degree of criminal operation can be lessened by controlling aspects of specific social circumstances in order to make prospective criminals believe that too much time and energy would be needed to guarantee the fulfilment of their criminal objectives, which probably would be insignificant, or that the risks are extremely severe (Tonry, 2009). However, with majority of identity theft related to people in power or of importance it is questionable that a great deal of responsibility for deterring identity theft depends on private sector organisations. Their management of identity and personal information serves a major part in thwarting identity theft from happening. They have specific obligations for the supervision of personal information that could be used to commit identity offences (Whitley & Hosein, 2009). Furthermore, they usually have a constitutional obligation to appropriately identify or check individuals before embarking on major transactions. In the UK, gathering and processing of information is regulated by the 1998 Data Protection Act (DPA). This legislation restricts the quantity of personal data that could be gathered by an organisation to data that is equivalent to its declared uses (Whitley & Hosein, 2009, p. 14). Even though the DPA is derived from the data protection rules originally introduced in the U.S. prior to its adoption by the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), there are no immediate counterparts in the United States for mainstream information management (Whitley & Hosein, 2009, pp. 14-15). Nevertheless, what are present in the United States are particular laws that declare that companies should inform their customers and/or employees if information kept by them is violated, which ought to help citizens lessen the possibility of identity theft (Roberson, 2008). Nevertheless, what is less definite is the success of this strategy in resolving the issue. Hence, in the UK, there has been opposition to the launching of such provisions for fear of raising unnecessary anxiety in people who may not be capable of assessing the notices properly. Furthermore, it may be essential to circulate ‘nothing to worry about’ (Whitley & Hosein, 2009, p. 15) notices if no issues develop so that people can be comforted that they have not overlooked a vital notice of issues. Empirical Research Findings As remarked by Miers (1978) and elaborated by Garland (2001), the victim is strongly entrenched in political discourse about criminal act in the UK and the related descriptions are of important symbolic value (as cited in Sullivan & Tifft, 2005, p. 279). Every UK Home Secretary would refuse to suggest policy programmes without mentioning the victim either metaphorically or in relation to actual policy. The role of the victim in such a manner has become an essential instrument in gaining approval for and rationalising criminal justice policy agendas in the UK. Miers (2004) records and evaluates several of the studies carried out in the UK on restorative justice (as cited in Sullivan & Tifft, 2005, p. 279). Advocates of restorative justice presented this law as comprising a large-scale reform in criminal justice policy, particularly with regard to addressing criminal act, such as identity theft. Restorative justice was viewed as the way not merely through which the victim could take part in the criminal justice system but also by which, in their involvement, could become conscious of the effect of their actions and take charge of it and assume responsibility for it. Restorative justice is particularly useful for victims who are in power or those victimised by identity theft. Through restorative justice, the victim and the criminal will become identifiable and, possibly, newsworthy. As argued by Dignan (2005), numerous supporters and experts of restorative justice have openly addressed the ‘ideal type’ victim (as cited in Sullivan & Tifft, 2005, p. 280). It is in fact possible to identify three distinctly developed descriptions of the victim in the restorative justice arena in the UK: “(1) The structurally neutral individual victim; (2) the image of the socially inclusive community as victim; and (3) the offender as victim” (Sullivan & Tifft, 2005, p. 280). Victimised people in power may be classified under the first category—‘the structurally neutral individual victim’—because of the ambiguity and indiscernibility of the crime of identity theft. Key Recommendations Victimisation of people in power is largely an uncommon subject in criminology. There are very few policies in place that are specifically catered to this victim group. However, victimisation of this group can be addressed in a number of effective ways. Since this victim group is especially vulnerable to identity theft, the ‘victim justice system’ should address their particular needs. First, there has to be broader acknowledgement of the importance of crime victim surveys. The range of data gathered through these surveys must be expanded. More information on the effect and outcomes of victimisation of people in power is needed so that their demands and needs can be deal with sufficiently. Second, studies on the effect of victimisation by various forms of crimes like property crimes would provide a broader image of the real consequence of victimisation (Allen, 2011). Third, the momentary nature of their encounter with law enforcers is still a dilemma for victims of identity theft. These victims require constancy and stability, especially in relation to the gathering of information and continuation. New programmes, like police-victim mediators and expert victim justice agencies must be assessed (Tonry, 2009). Fourth, respect for the victim’s confidentiality, privacy, and needs must be the top priority in the handling of victims by the news media, especially with regard to prominent people. Fifth, there must be broader acceptance of the value of restorative justice ideals and their part in giving victims the chance to voice out their opinion. And lastly, there should be acceptance that the application of restorative justice rules enables a certain extent of individual involvement and control by the victim in a procedure from which they are normally left out. Conclusions Victimisation of people in power is a not a widely recognised issue because, normally, victims come from the marginalised sections of the population. Nevertheless, it does not mean that this victim group does not require assistance. People in power, especially those earning higher incomes, are very much likely to be victimised by identity theft. Historically, prominent individuals were the targets of identity thieves. Since identity theft is a somewhat new occurrence in the UK, there would be much room to manoeuvre in terms of policy development and implementation. The establishment of a victim justice system would be of much benefit to this victim group. They should be given due respect and attention in the news media and the criminal justice system because the crimes that they are usually exposed to are ambiguous and unidentifiable crimes. References Allen, W. (2011) Criminals and Victims. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Biegelman, M. (2009) Identity Theft Handbook: Detection, Prevention, and Security. UK: John Wiley & Sons. European Commission. 2012. Study for an Impact Assessment on a Proposal for a New Legal Framework on Identity Theft [Online]. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/policies/organized-crime-and-human-trafficking/cybercrime/docs/final_report_identity_theft_11_december_2012_en.pdf [Accessed 12 December 2013]. Letschert, R. & van Dijk, J. (2011) The New Faces of Victimhood: Globalisation, Transnational Crimes and Victim Rights. New York: Springer. Property Wire. 2013. UK Landlords Warned Over Perils of Identity Theft [Online]. Available at: http://www.propertywire.com/news/europe/uk-landlords-identity-theft-201312118555.html [Accessed: 12 December 2013]. Roberson, C. (2008) Identity Theft Investigations. UK: Kaplan Publishing. Sullivan, D. & Tifft, L. (2005) Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective. London: Routledge. Tonry, M. (2009) The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks Online. Walklate, S. (2007) Handbook of Victims and Victimology. Collumpton: Willan. Whitley, E. & Hosein, G. (2009) Global Challenges for Identity Policies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Winch, J. 2013. Our ?130,000 bill from identity theft [Online]. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/10388791/Our-130000-bill-from-identity-theft.html [Accessed: 12 December 2013]. Read More