Features Of The Victimization Process - Case Study Example

Features Of The Victimization Process 1. Introduction The response of people to their environment can be differentiated in accordance with a series of factors; personal experiences and the social environment are likely to influence the way of thinking of individuals and their behaviour as members of a particular society. On the other hand, social conditions worldwide have changed; the communication of people has been set under different rules – compared to the past; the value of ethics has been limited and new rules of co-existence in the context of a specific social framework have been set. Because of the deterioration of the conditions of life and the lack of effective communication among people, new standards of behaviour have been developed while the involvement in criminal activities has become a common phenomenon. Under these conditions, human life is given no particular attention and the violation of rights – which has become a daily problem – is not appropriately addressed. The responses of people to the increase of criminal behaviour can be characterized as quite complex; moreover, the exposure of people to criminal actions is differentiated in accordance with a series of criteria; victimization has been used in order to reflect two different issues/ conditions: the level of exposure of a person to criminal activities and the personal experiences of persons that became victims under specific conditions. Current paper focuses on victimization especially regarding its nature as a predictable event. Existing literature has been studied in order to identify the level at which victimization can be predicted – and if there is such a case. It has been revealed that victimization has many chances to be predicted but it is necessary that communication exist between the subject of victimization and a member of his/ her environment otherwise the relevant effort is likely to fail. Another assumption made in the context of this study is the fact that victimization can be interpreted using different criteria; the choice of the appropriate one is not an easy task; in any case, it depends whether victimization is used in order to explain the personal thoughts of a person or whether it is used for reflecting the psychology of the specific person. 2. Victimisation – characteristics and forms Victimization has two main forms: in its first aspect, victimization is related with the offences that aim to cause physical damage to a particular person; this is the direct victimization. There is also the indirect victimization – more expanded compared to the direct victimization. In direct victimization the person himself suffers damage where in indirect victimization the damage is more likely to be psychological; a person suffers for the damage caused to someone else – usually person from the family environment. The characteristics and forms of victimization have been identified in the literature; their – brief – presentation will help to understand the effects of victimization event on the behaviour of the victim. The differentiation of victimization in accordance with the conditions in which the criminal behaviour is developed can be understood through the study of Berliner et al. [1990]; the above study focuses on the aspects of sexual abuse of children; it is concluded that the specific form of victimization ‘involves three overlapping processes: sexualization of the relationship, justification of the sexual contact, and maintenance of the child's cooperation’ [Berliner & Conte: 1990, p.29]. It is concluded that these steps are included in criminal activities of similar form. Through this study it is made clear that the predictability of victimization can refer to all phases of this process – since these phases have been identified and evaluated in regard to specific criminal actions. The predictability of victimization can be understood if referring to this event’s elements and nature; in accordance with Froeling [2007, p.119] criminal victimization is used in order to describe a series of criminal activities, including ‘assault, vandalism and fraud’ [Froeling, 2007, p.119]. By accepting the argument that criminal victimization can be predicted the following assumption could be made: criminal activities – most of them – are planned, only certain of them are executed with no previous thought and consent of the perpetrator – the duration of the thought is not a criterion for justifying a non – existence of plan; in fact all crimes are planned – usually in regard to all their phases. For this reason, it can be supported that the predictability of criminal victimization should be justified by referring to the character of crimes as activities that violate the law and which are executed with the consent of the perpetrator – which knows the criminal character of the action and accepts its results. In accordance with Green et al. [2000, p. 17] a high percentage of people have the experience of criminal victimisation. This victimisation can be depended on the characteristics of the victim – for instance a child is more expected to develop a trauma when experiencing criminal victimisation – adults can be considered as being more strong in regard to the management of fear and trauma caused because of criminal victimisation. On the other hand, the level of expansion of victimisation cannot lead to the assumption that the relevant activities are not predictable; they can predicted but their consequences could be differentiated – taking into consideration the regulatory and cultural framework of each area. Criminal victimisation cannot be considered as justified no matter the reaction of the victim to the relevant crime; reference is made to the case of repeat victimisation, which refers to criminal actions against the same people on a continuous basis [Williams: 1999, p. 23]. The form of this activity may leads to the assumption that the perpetrator acts with the consent of the victim; however, the actual aspects of this type of criminal activity are quite different. When experiencing criminal victimisation of this type, victims are likely to lose their willingness to react; however, this fact does not assume that their consent exists. On the contrary, the opposition of the victim to the action of the perpetrator is continuous but the victim’s power to opposite this action is periodically reduced giving the – wrong – sign that the victim has abandoned his efforts to opposite to the criminal victimisation. The criminal victimisation of this type is easily predicted; however, its duration cannot be known in advance; anytime the victim can manage to face the perpetrator and stop the development of the particular activity. 3. Victimisation as a predictable event 3.1 Causes of Victimization In order to identify whether victimization is a random event or whether its appearance is random it would be necessary to refer to its causes. In the literature, efforts have been made in order to identify the factors and the events that cause victimization; the findings of these studies are quite important in order to understand the nature of victimization – and to verify whether is a predictable or a random event. Mynard et al. [2000] tried to identify the causes of victimization in adolescents; through their research it was revealed that victimization is an event the appearance of which can be predicted. More specifically, it was proved that ‘peer victimisation is associated with lower self-worth and higher posttraumatic stress; those adolescents with an external locus of control may be at greater risk of psychological problems’ [Mynard, Joseph & Alexander: 2000, p. 815]. It is concluded that people that are easily manipulated by others are more likely to become victims. It is not made clear whether the manipulator needs to belong to a person’s close social environment – member of the family – or whether he can have any role in the environment of the prospective victim. The above issue is made clear in the study of Earl & Burns [2009] where efforts were made in order for the relationship between the family environment and the victimization to be revealed. Indeed, the findings of the study showed that the chances for victimization are higher for those persons that have suffered direct or indirect aggression within their family – reference is made to the parents and their role in the victimization of their child [Earl & Burns: 2009, p.748]. The study of Woods, Done & Kalsi [2009, p.293] further supports the existence of a relationship between emotions and victimization: emotional problems and loneliness are factors that can indicate the potential victimization of a person. The above assumption is based on the findings of a survey conducted among adolescents. The age of the participants could be used as a justification of the limitation of the study’s effectiveness: it could be supported that adolescents tend to show higher responsiveness to emotional events and for this reason a relationship has been identified in regard to their emotions and victimization. For this reason, it would be necessary for the relationship between victimization and personal characteristics – like the age and the gender of a person – to be identified. Sigfusdottir et al. [2010] tried to identify the level at which anger can influence the development of victimization especially if the following events take place simultaneously: ‘bullying and bully victimisation and delinquent behaviour’ [Sigfusdottir et al.: 2010, p.391]; the findings of the above study showed that ‘bullying behaviour and bully victimisation both increased the likelihood of delinquent behaviour, but the effects were significantly stronger for bullying behaviour than bully victimisation’ [Sigfusdottir et al.: 2010, p.391]. It is concluded that the level of victimization is directly depended on the level of exposure of the person/ victim to specific social conditions and emotions. The term ‘social conditions’ in this case is used to describe a social framework of a particular format, for instance the school, and not the ideas or the culture of a specific society. The study of Sigfusdottir et al [2010] leads to similar assumptions with that of Woods et al. [2009] who emphasized on the greater exposure of children and adolescents to victimization. In adults also, victimization is likely to have severe effects – leading to the establishment of practices that make the survival in a particular social framework quite difficult. This issue is examined in the study of Holland et al. [2009, p.84], which focuses on the identification of the potential relationship between bullying and aggression; the responses of male prisoners in regard to aggression and bullying have been recorded and analyzed taking into consideration the conditions of the specific environment. It was revealed that differences existed between bullies and victims in regard to their behaviour within an aggressive environment; it could be concluded that bullies are likely to act under the influence of direct aggression whereas victims tend to show less willingness to react aggressively. Other factors in regard to the development of victimization can also identified; an indicative example is the place of residence – either temporary or permanent. This issue has been set under examination by Brunt, Mawby & Hambly [2000, p. 41]; their research led to the following finding: there is a relationship between tourism and crime – having the sense that tourism can play a role in the increase of criminal activities; in this context, it has been noted that people are more likely to become victims while being in vacations. At this point it should be made clear whether there are places – used as destinations of tourists – where the risk of victimization is higher or whether this risk is expected to be of the same level no matter the place at which a person resides – for vacations or for residency. The importance of the regional characteristics of a place for the potential development of victimization is emphasized in the study of Foster et al [2010]; in this context, it is concluded that in communities that take all necessary measures for the control of victimization it is more expected for victimization to be kept at low levels. The above view can lead to the assumption that in neighbourhoods where emphasis is given to the safety of citizens, it can be predicted that victimization’s rates will be low. On the other hand, there are cases where no prediction in regard to victimization can be made; an indicative example is the post-traumatic victimization, which is explored in the study of Porter et al. [2007, p.79]; in the above study it has been proved that the extremely high emotional distress can lead the memory to traumatic effects; however, the terms under this process can be completed is not fully examined yet. In fact, traumatic victimization can occur anytime – there is no way for this process to be predicted – under the influence of specific events. The specific finding reveals that victimization is predictable – in general – but its appearance can be sometimes related with events that cannot be controlled or predicted. Only if a person is aware of these events can come to the assumption that these events may cause victimization; however, again, the time point and the level of this event cannot be defined in advance. Even if victimisation is predictable, still its effects cannot be clearly identified; on people that have experienced criminal victimisation the influence of the specific event can be higher than initially estimated – possibly because of significant changes in a people’s family or professional life. Hope et al. [2000, p.170] focus on a specific element of criminal victimisation: the fear. It is noted that fear in criminal victimisation can have three different perspectives: the micro, the meso and the macro; each perspective indicates the relationship between the fear and the criminal victimisation events as they were experienced by the victim. 3.2 Control of victimization by the state and the community Victimization – as explained above – is an event that should be closely monitored by the state; it is not implied that measures of limitation of personal rights would be introduced; however, it would be necessary for relevant authorities to develop a series of plans aiming to reduce the level of exposure of people to victimization; emphasis should be given on the protection of adolescents from victimization; in the studies presented above it has been proved that victimization is more likely to appear in case of personal experiences in childhood or adolescence. This means that if there are no provisions for protecting children and adolescents from victimization, then it is expected that the specific event will be repeated in their adulthood. At this point, the following problem seems to exist: in case that measures are taken by the state for the limitation of victimization across children and adolescence but these measures are not welcomed by the family environment then which would be the most appropriate initiative towards the control of victimization during these periods of a person’s life? In this case, the following issue is set: the control of victimization cannot be achieved unless all the actors of this event are approached and are given the necessary psychological support. Often, this task is not feasible especially when victimization has not been diagnosed as a potential event in the context of a specific social framework. For this reason, it is necessary that plans are developed that help to predict the appearance of victimization in the context of a specific area – or social environment of a particular format, for instance a family. The examination of existing literature – as presented above – led to the assumption that victimization can be predicted – a fact that ensures the success of the effort described above. However, it is necessary that the persons involved in the relevant project are appropriately skilled and prepared (trained) in order to meet all the requirements of the particular plan. Even if victimization can be predicted – and appropriately addressed in the context explained above – still its limitation may faces delays: the responses of people (actors) to victimization cannot be standardized; an active reaction may be chosen but the avoidance of any initiative would be also the reaction of a person that faces the victimization. On the other hand, the performance of the state’s plan in regard to victimization cannot be ensured; in general, the state has the role to promote equality, justice and fairness across the country. This means that in cases of crises caused under the influence of victimization, the existent legislation would not protect the victim – if possible, a limitation of the victim’s exposure to victimization should be decided. As noted above, victimization has two forms/ aspects; in its active form, it reflects the intention of a person to proceed to specific criminal actions against another person; in its second format, it shows the potential risk of a person to become victim, i.e. to face a criminal activity of a particular type. Each form of victimization needs to be particularly addressed – in order to identify its causes and its points of control/ limitation. Woods et al. [2004] examined the first form of victimization; the reference to the findings of their study has particular importance since it helps to understand whether victimization in all its forms is predictable. In the study of Woods et al. [2004] it is proved that ‘no relationship between direct bullying behaviour and decrements in academic achievement’ [Woods & Wolke: 2004, p.135]. It is not made quite clear whether victimization in school can be predicted; however, an importance indication regarding the predictability of victimization is given; it is noted that ‘underachievement and frustration at school does not lead to direct, physical bullying behaviour’ [Woods & Wolke: 2004, p.135]; this means that the criteria set for predicting the victimization need to be carefully examined; not all social events are necessarily signs of victimization. The potential influence of loneliness in victimization has been also emphasized in the study of Toner et al. [2005]; in this study it is made clear that loneliness would be an indication of victimization, but the percentage for the appearance of victimization as a result of loneliness cannot be defined in advance – it is assumed that the social environment and the personal experiences will enhance victimization – especially if being combined with other events, such as loneliness [Toner & Heaven: 2005, p.579]. At the next level, the identification of the signs of victimization in early phases of life would help the state to control the criminal behaviour of adults. Through the study of Wise et al. [2001] it was proved that a correlation exists ‘between violent victimisation early in life and major depressive disorder in women’ [Wise et al.: 2001, p. 881); in other words, the effects of victimization can last; for this reason, it is important that victimization is predicted; in this way criminal behaviour – especially that of the specific type – may be avoided. Shepherd [1998, p.15] examined the level of development of criminal victimisation in Britain; it is noted that violence is the most common form of criminal victimisation in the specific country; however, the measures taken by the government for the limitation of this form of criminal victimisation are not adequate. The case of Britain is used as an example regarding the response of governments to the expansion of criminal victimisation worldwide; the effects of these events on the daily life of people are often ignored leading to the expansion of the events of this kind. 4. Conclusion The examination of the aspects of victimization – as presented above – can lead to the following assumptions: a) victimization is predictable but the criteria used for the development of this task are not standardized; this means that under different social conditions or different personal experiences these criteria may lead to different assumptions in regard to the potential appearance of victimization, b) victimization is not always expressed through the same form; it can be direct or indirect – in accordance with the role of its subject within a specific social context and can have include a series of actions or emphasize on just one activity, c) the effects of victimization can be long term if the events that led to its first appearance took place in the early phases of human life, i.e. in childhood or in adolescence, d) the role of the environment in the limitation of victimization is not clear; in fact, it has been proved in the literature that the environment may have a negative role in the development of victimization; a person’s environment is also expected to influence his/ her willingness to face victimization, e) victimization has been proved to be critical for a person’s life; in some cases, victimization could become a threat even for a whole community, in case that criminal behaviour is expanded and become too difficult to be controlled; however, the support of the state and the community in the efforts to control victimization is limited; in most cases, the intervention of the state in the confrontation of victimization takes place after the development of the specific event despite the fact that victimization has been found to be predictable. It is clear that this finding is not sufficient for the control of victimization; appropriate framework of action needs to be developed in each region making sure that victimization is controlled and that emphasis is given on children and adolescents – who are most likely to suffer quite long from the negative effects of victimization. The effects of the criminal victimization on human life can be differentiated; the most important effect of the above activity involves in the development of trauma and fear related with activities of similar characteristics. This effect is more severe in children and adolescents; however, Hope et al. [2000, p.168] note that the criminal victimization can also have its positive aspects: a) people around the world are informed and are prepared on the forms of behaviour developed in the context of globalization; societies are changing under the influence of the continuous development of technology available for the realization of various projects; people need to be informed on these changes on align their activities with the principles that govern the international market, b) governments around the world have to face the continuous increase of criminal activities worldwide; the increase of criminal victimisation – as observed worldwide – would be followed by the update of existing legal rules – especially those that refer to the punishment of criminal activities. Governors worldwide should take into consideration the fact that criminal victimization is continuously increased – see also relevant studies above; this fact reveals the weakness of governments to develop effective regulatory frameworks in regard to the control of criminal victimization. The predictability of criminal victimisation cannot lead to the assumption that the supervision over the criminal victimisation worldwide is effective; on the contrary, severe failures exist which need to be carefully addressed in order to ensure the improvement of the standards of life internationally. Being able to predict certain aspects of the criminal victimization, governors would be able to develop effective frameworks for the control of the relevant activities. On its negative aspect, the predictability in regard to the criminal victimisation leads to the assumption that legislators can be aware in advance on the risks related with the expansion of criminal victimisation; thus any failure in the plans developed for the achievement of the above target can be considered as indicating the lack of competencies of people involved or the existence of different priorities in regard to the update of a country’s legislation. From this point of view, the predictability of criminal victimisation would not be of any value regarding the update of existing legal systems. References L. BERLINER, J. CONTE ‘The process of victimization: The victims' perspective’ Child Abuse & Neglect, V 14(1), 1990 P. BRUNT, R. MAWBY & Z. HAMBLY, ‘Tourist victimisation and the fear of crime on holiday’ Tourism Management, V 21 (4), 2000 R. EARL, N. BURNS, ‘Experiences of peer aggression and parental attachment are correlated in adolescents’ Personality and Individual Differences, V 47(7), 2009 D. EVANS, M. FLETCHER ‘Fear of crime: testing alternative hypotheses’ Applied Geography, V 20(4), 2000 C. FOX, C. FARROW ‘Global and physical self-esteem and body dissatisfaction as mediators of the relationship between weight status and being a victim of bullying’ Journal of Adolescence, V 32(5), 2009 S. FOSTER, B. CORTI & M. KNUIMAN ‘Neighbourhood design and fear of crime: A social-ecological examination of the correlates of residents’ fear in new suburban housing developments’ Health & Place, In Press, 2010 D. FREEMAN, D. FOWLER ‘Routes to psychotic symptoms: Trauma, anxiety and psychosis-like experiences’ Psychiatry Research, V 169(2), 2009 K. FROELING, Criminology Research Focus, (2007) P. GREEN, A. RUTHERFORD ‘Criminal policy in transition’, (2000) D. HOLLAND, J. IRELAND & S. MUNCER ‘Impulsivity, attribution and prison bullying: Bully-category and perpetrator–victim mutuality’ International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, V 32(2), 2009 T. HOPE, R. SPARKS, Crime, risk, and insecurity: law and order in everyday life and political discourse, (2000) H. MYNARD, JOSEPH, S. & J. ALEXANDER, ‘Peer-victimisation and posttraumatic stress in adolescents’ Personality and Individual Differences, V 29 (5), 2000 JOANNE NEALE, MICHAEL BLOOR & CHRISTOPHER WEIR ‘Problem drug users and assault’ International Journal of Drug Policy, V 16(6), 2005 S. PORTER, K. PEACE, K. EMMETT ‘You Protest Too Much, Methinks: Investigating the Features of Truthful and Fabricated Reports of Traumatic Experiences’ Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, V 39(2), 2007 W. SCHURINK, Victimization: nature and trends, (1992) J. SHEPHERD ‘Victims of violent crime’ Accident and Emergency Nursing, V 6(1), 1998 I. SIGFUSDOTTIR, G. GUDJONSSON & J. SIGURDSSON ‘Bullying and delinquency. The mediating role of anger’ Personality and Individual Differences, V 48 (4), 2010 M. TONER, P. HEAVEN ‘Peer-social attributional predictors of socio-emotional adjustment in early adolescence: a two-year longitudinal study’ Personality and Individual Differences, V 38(3), 2005 B. WILLIAMS ‘Working with victims of crime: policies, politics and practice’, (1999) L. WISE, S. ZIERLER, N. KRIEGER & B. HARLOW, ‘Adult onset of major depressive disorder in relation to early life violent victimisation: a case-control study’ The Lancet, V 358(9285), 2001 S. WOODS, J. DONE & H. KALSI, ‘Peer victimisation and internalising difficulties: The moderating role of friendship quality’ Journal of Adolescence, V 32 (2), 2009 S. WOODS, D. WOLKE ‘Direct and relational bullying among primary school children and academic achievement’ Journal of School Psychology, V 42(2), 2004 Read More