In this Term Paper, you are required to make use of at least five (5) peer reviewed academic sources. Topic: sexual assault Structure of the Paper Topic You are to develop the topic that fits within the scope of victimology. Abstract You must have an abstract of not more than 150 words. Introduction Provide a brief introduction, and the thesis of your paper must be stated Research Question In research, you are trying to answer a question/solve a problem. So, after reading the peer reviewed journal articles and other texts, decide what the question(s)/problem(s) is/are. Theoretical Perspective You must adopt 1or 2 theories to support and expound your thesis. Discussion General exposition of what your paper is all about, findings, conclusion and recommendations. References Must be in APA style format. Your paper should be six to eight pages. Title page and bibliography are not included. The references/citations should be in proper format, using APA Style. 901463_00_FM.indd 3 25/01/16 7:48 PM 1 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries. Published in Canada by Oxford University Press 8 Sampson Mews, Suite 204, Don Mills, Ontario M3C 0H5 Canada www.oupcanada.com Copyright © Oxford University Press Canada 2016 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First Edition published in 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Permissions Department at the address above or through the following url: www.oupcanada.com/permission/permission_request.php Every effort has been made to determine and contact copyright holders. In the case of any omissions, the publisher will be pleased to make suitable acknowledgement in future editions. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Scott, Hannah, 1966-, author Victimology : Canadians in context / Hannah Scott. -- Second edition. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-19-901463-7 (paperback) 1. Victims of crime--Canada--Textbooks. I. Title. HV6250.3.C3S36 2016 362.880971 C2016-900282-9 Cover image: © iStock/Julia_Sudnitskaya Oxford University Press is committed to our environment. Wherever possible, our books are printed on paper which comes from responsible sources. Printed and bound in Canada 1 2 3 4 — 19 18 17 16 901463_00_FM.indd 4 25/01/16 7:48 PM This text is dedicated to all those who have been victimized. It is your stories, strength, and courage that inspire this text. and To Jim 901463_00_FM.indd 5 25/01/16 7:48 PM Contents Acknowledgements   xi Preface   xii Introduction Who Is a Victim?    1 Definitions of Victim   1 Public Order Crimes   2 Definitions of Victimology   4 Organization of the Text    4 Summary    5 Critical Thinking Questions   5 Chapter 1 Understanding Victimology   7 Introduction   7 A Historic View of the Role of the Victim    7 The Victims’ Movement in Canada    10 Canadian Trends in Victimization    11 Summary   18 Critical Thinking Questions   18 Chapter 2 Measuring Victimization   20 Introduction   20 Types of Victims     20 Measuring Victimization   25 Surveys Examining Victims of Crime    28 Police Data Surveys   32 Non-Government Surveys   32 Differences in Measurement: Asking the Best Questions Possible   35 Summary   39 Critical Thinking Questions   39 Chapter 3 Typologies of Victim–Victimizer Interaction    40 Introduction   40 The Early Victimologists   42 Criticism of Early Victimology Typologies    47 Victim Precipitation   48 Five Problems with Victim Precipitation    51 Victim Provocation, Victim Facilitation, and Victim Participation and/or Co-operation   54 Criticisms of the New Terms    57 Summary   58 Critical Thinking Questions   59 901463_00_FM.indd 6 25/01/16 7:48 PM Contents Chapter 4 vii Criminological Theories and the Victim    60 Introduction   60 Theory and Perspective: Classical Criminology    60 The Criminal Event Perspective    61 Rational Choice Theories: The Transaction    62 Theory and Perspective: Positivist Theories    69 Feminist/Critical Criminology   72 School of Thought: Social Reaction Theories—The Aftermath     74 Summary   77 Critical Thinking Questions   77 Chapter 5 Criminal Event: Homicide    79 Introduction   79 Definition of Homicide in Canada    80 Risk of Homicide Victimization in Canada    81 Gender and Homicide Victimization    84 Relationship between Victim and Offender     86 Homicide among Youth   89 Aboriginal Peoples as Homicide Victims    90 Three Theories of Homicide    90 Multiple Homicide Victims   96 Secondary Victims of Homicide    98 Summary   100 Critical Thinking Questions   101 Chapter 6 Criminal Event: Sexual Assault    102 Introduction   102 A Brief History of Rape and Sexual Assault    102 Legal Definitions of Sexual Assault    105 Sexual Assault Victimization Reported in the Canadian General Social Survey (GSS)    107 Reasons for Not Reporting Sexual Assault    117 Responses by the Criminal Justice System    118 Conflicting Prevention Advice to Potential Victims    119 Canadian Case Law Protecting the Victim: R. v. Seaboyer and R. v. Gayme    120 Crisis Centres   122 Sexual Assault of Males    123 Can We Prevent Sexual Assault?     123 Summary   127 Critical Thinking Questions   128 901463_00_FM.indd 7 25/01/16 7:48 PM viii Contents Chapter 7 Criminal Event: Family Violence    129 Introduction   129 What Is Domestic/Family Violence?    129 Family Violence: Intimate Partner Violence (ipv)   132 ipv and the Conflict Tactics Scale (cts)   135 Child Witnesses to ipv and Other Forms of Family Violence     136 Intimate Terrorism   138 Motivation for ipv   138 The Law and ipv   139 Battered Woman Syndrome   140 Response Options for Victims of Intimate Partner Violence   143 Effectiveness of the Options Offered by the Criminal Justice System for ipv Victims   149 The Role of Coercive Control    150 Other Forms of Family Violence—Children and Youth    150 Other Forms of Family Violence—The Elderly    154 The Role of Intersectionality    156 Summary   157 Critical Thinking Questions   157 Chapter 8 Criminal Event: Fraud and White-Collar Crime    159 Introduction   159 White-Collar Victimization   159 Prevalence of Fraud Victimization     160 Difficulties in Measuring Fraud Victimization    161 Letter, Phone, and Internet Scams     164 Other Types of Scams    175 Why Do Victims Fall for these Scams?     176 Victim Recourse and Prevention    178 Summary   179 Critical Thinking Questions    180 Chapter 9 Issue: Aboriginal Peoples of Canada and Victimization   181 Introduction   181 Aboriginal Peoples in Canada    181 The Development of the Residential School System    184 Victimization Trends among Aboriginal Peoples in Canada    192 The Victimization of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada    193 901463_00_FM.indd 8 25/01/16 7:48 PM Contents ix The Role of Risk Factors    203 Aboriginal Resilience   204 Summary   204 Critical Thinking Questions   205 Chapter 10 Issue: Vulnerable Populations and Victimization    206 Introduction   206 Vulnerable Populations   206 Victimization of the Homeless    207 Residents of Total Institutions    212 Victimization of People with Disabilities    221 Reporting Victimization   223 Explaining High Rates of Victimization among Vulnerable Populations   224 Summary   225 Critical Thinking Questions   225 Chapter 11 Issue: Bullying and Victimization in Public and Private Spaces over the Life Course    227 Introduction   227 The Criminal Event Perspective    227 Perceived and Actual Risk of Victimization over the Life Course    229 Victimization in the Private Sphere    230 Victimization in the Public Sphere    230 Prevention   242 Summary   244 Critical Thinking Questions   245 Chapter 12 Aftermath: Victims in the Criminal Justice System    247 Introduction   247 Comparing Restorative and Retributive Systems    248 The Canadian Criminal Justice System    248 The Effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System    250 Victim Impact Statements   253 Victim Satisfaction with the Criminal Justice System    255 Victim Services in Canada    256 Victim Restitution and Compensation    257 Restorative Justice Practice   261 Threats to Restorative Justice Practice    264 Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Programs for Victims    265 Restorative Justice and Secondary Victims of Homicide    266 901463_00_FM.indd 9 25/01/16 7:48 PM x Contents Acceptance of Restorative Justice in Canada    267 Criticisms of Restorative Justice Methods    269 Victims’ Bill of Rights    270 Registering as a Victim with Corrections Canada    277 Summary   278 Critical Thinking Questions   279 Chapter 13 Aftermath: Resilience and Recovery    280 Introduction   280 Victimization and Secondary Victimization    280 Reactions to Victimization: Fear    281 Reactions to Victimization: Stress    288 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (ptsd)   289 Developmental Trauma Disorder   295 Other After-Effects of Victimization    297 Support Networks and Secondary Victims of Crime   300 Recovery and Resilience   304 Summary   306 Critical Thinking Questions   307 Glossary   308 References   318 Index   336 901463_00_FM.indd 10 25/01/16 7:48 PM Acknowledgements Many people made the second edition of this text possible. I would like to thank the following for their aid in the preparation of this text: Oxford University Press provided an excellent team. I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers who offered wonderful insights into what would make this a better text. I am thankful for their efforts and hope that this book meets their expectations. I would like to personally thank Julie Fletcher, Amy ­Gordon and Mark Thompson, Lisa Ball, and Janna Green. I am sure that others on this team also worked hard to make this project successful. For all your efforts, I am appreciative. I would like to thank the reviewers of the previous edition and the draft manuscript for this book: • Amy Fitzgerald, University of Windsor • Frank Lavandier, University of Prince Edward Island • Margaret Sullivan, New Brunswick Community College • Brenda Thomas, St. Thomas University • Michael Weinrath, University of Winnipeg As always, I would like to thank the students who have taken my class 901463_00_FM.indd 11 and asked the important questions that inspired this book. Their enthusiasm and interest in this subject guided many of the book’s chapters. I would also like to thank one of my oldest friends, Kevan Parry, who provided me a spot to write for a short time while I worked on a portion of this text. His wonderful space in the south of France was just what the doctor needed. I would to thank Carol Todd, the mother of Amanda Todd, who made such helpful comments in the chapter examining aspects of bullying and her daughter’s experience. Amanda’s story has inspired so many victimology students and this book is better because she was part of it. I would like to acknowledge my mentors along the way, who took a chance and guided me through the disciplines of sociology and criminology and eventually into the area of victimology: Dr Richard Brymer, Dr Ronald Hinch, Dr Susan McDaniel, and Dr Leslie W. Kennedy. I am forever grateful. Last, but always first in my books, I want to thank my friends and family, and especially my husband, James, for being ever-present and supportive. 25/01/16 7:48 PM Preface C an you remember a time when someone took something from you without your permission? Have you ever loaned something to someone who never returned it? Have you ever witnessed someone hitting, punching, choking, or otherwise injuring another person in a way that you knew was illegal? Have you ever been hurt in such a way? These questions are limited, to some degree, to victimizations that may involve the criminal justice system, but when they are considered carefully (and truthfully!), almost all of us can answer “yes” to at least one of them. The idea of victimization most often conjures images of victims of violent acts associated with the criminal justice system. Yet many of us have a limited definition of what being a victim truly means. If we broadened our horizons to embrace a definition of victimization that includes situations such as being diagnosed with a disease or suffering an injury in a car accident, we would be hard pressed to find someone who has not been touched by some form of victimization. Quite simply, none of us are alone in our experience as a victim. Victimization, however, is not a subject people like to talk about. Being victimized often raises powerful emotions, including anger, fear, and humiliation. One common emotional side effect of victimization is feeling alone or abandoned. Despite the fact that victimization is common, many victims believe that no one can understand what they are going through. 901463_00_FM.indd 12 Although victimization and our experiences of it are seldom discussed outside our immediate social circles, there is one place where it is often reported: in the media. If you look at a newspaper, television, or the Internet on any given day, you will see stories associated with crime. These reports tend to focus on the criminal, but they also include the story of the victim. Box 1.1 lists the victim-related stories that appeared in the front sections of The Globe and Mail and the National Post on a single day: 16 February 2015. Note that not all of the stories I have chosen are crime-related. As an exercise in preparation for this course, choose a news medium and identify stories about someone who has been victimized. Analyze the stories to assess what the victim experienced. In other words, try to gain the victim perspective from what you have collected. While most people acknowledge that studying offenders is extremely import­ ant for our understanding of crime, only very recently have we sought to understand the other half of the equation: the victim. In fact, the victim is often the hero of the story. In the area of crime and criminal justice, the victim is the most valuable source of evidence and, therefore, often holds the key to any investigation. To treat a victim poorly or without dignity and respect reduces the likelihood that he or she will co-operate in bringing the offender to justice. 25/01/16 7:48 PM Preface xiii Box I.1 One-Day Snapshot: Victimization Stories in The Globe and Mail and the National Post, 16 February 2015 From The Globe and Mail and the National Post: • A 101-year-old victim of a home invasion, World War II veteran Ernest Coté, learned that his attacker is now suspected of killing three other seniors in 2007. All victims, including Mr. Coté, were found with plastic bags placed over their heads which were tied at the neck (The Globe and Mail, pp. A1, A5; National Post, pp. A1, A5). • Thousands of people marched in Copenhagen to mourn the lives of two men shot over the weekend. Police think the killing was inspired by the shootings at the C ­ harlie Hebdo newspaper in Paris in early January 2015. A filmmaker was shot when a gunman opened fire on a group of people who had gathered in a public space to talk about the role of art and free speech. A second man was shot at another location as he guarded a synagogue while 80 guests celebrated a bat mitzvah (The Globe and Mail, p. A9, National Post, p. A1, A7). Danish Prime Minister Helle ThorningSchmidt urged people to come together and build a stronger community and to not let this crime change the Danish people. “We must think, speak they [sic] way we want to. We are who we are” (The Globe and Mail, p. A9). From The Globe and Mail only: • Russian-backed rebels and Ukrainian troops in Debaltseve, Ukraine, ignored a negotiated ceasefire. Rebel soldiers stated that they had been advancing in the area since January and had Ukrainian soldiers all but surrounded. Several troops on both sides have died in the exchange (p. A2). • Canadians across the country are privately donating to victims who were born with deformities in the 1960s as a result of government-approved Thalidomide prescribed for pregnant women with nausea. Although the government stated it is committed to compensating the 100 victims, who are dealing with escalating pain and financial hardship, it has not done so as of this date. The compensation package requested is modelled after similar programs already in place in Britain and Germany (p. A4). • Environmentalists were concerned with Bill C-51 as it went for debate in the House of Commons. British Columbia civil libertarian lawyer Paul Champ was concerned about the vague language in the bill, the purpose of which is to identify any activity that “undermines the security of Canada.” These groups assert that the government might use this legislation to identify environmental protesters as “environmental extremists,” putting the protestors at risk for privacy violations such as surveillance or being placed on government watch lists. Civil libertarians argue that this bill will violate Canadians’ Charter right to freely assemble for the purpose of protest (p. A4). • School-aged children in Liberia returned to class this day after an estimated 3,800 ­people died in an Ebola outbreak. Students had been out of school for six months (p. A9). • In a letter to the editor, Heather O’Meara of Toronto stated she was concerned by the depiction of women in the film and book Fifty Shades of Grey, saying that continued 901463_00_FM.indd 13 25/01/16 7:48 PM xiv Preface • • • • • • • certain men’s rights groups who view women as “an entitlement” may use parts of the book as a textbook. She suggested the book may be used to instruct men on victimization techniques (p. A10). Columnist Margaret Wente was concerned about the troublingly low rates of sexual abuse reporting on campuses. She pointed out that many issues exist with these numbers and that the cbc, the creators of the report, should be more responsible in their reporting (p. A11). More about this cbc report can be found in Chapter 2, which looks at issues of measurement. Commentator André Picard reported that victims who suffer from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome received support from the US Institute of Medicine, which concluded that a legitimate cluster of observable symptoms appears to be associated with this disease, and that it does not appear to be a psychosomatic condition. The implications of these conclusions include earlier diagnosis and treatment for potential sufferers (p. A11). Columnist Lawrence Martin expressed concern about the government’s push for Bill C-51, the anti-terrorist legislation. Martin cited several previous cases under the Harper government that suggest opponents to the proposed pipeline through Canada and the United States, including a bird-watching society, have faced ­ increased scrutiny by Revenue Canada. An arbitration ruling in favour of sca Promotions of Dallas, and against former cyclist Lance Armstrong, ordered the former athlete and his company, Tailwinds, to repay $10 million to sca Promotions. Armstrong earlier confessed to doping in order to win races. The company was harmed because of the “unparalleled pageant of international perjury, fraud, and conspiracy” and had paid out $12 million in bonuses to Armstrong and Tailwinds under misleading circumstances (p. S4). Columnist Sandra Martin commented on the recent unprecedented, and unanimous, ruling in favour of right-to-die legislation for those who are of sound mind, who have an incurable disease, and who are experiencing enduring suffering (p. L5). First Nations engage in traditional healing methods and conventional therapies to continue to heal the intergenerational trauma that was experienced as a result of residential schools (p. L5). More on this subject can be found in Chapter 9. Laurie Lewis, age 84, of Kingston, ON, writes about her many friends who have died and what it’s like for the living who experience the deaths of so many who are close to them (p. L6). In the National Post: • Zunera Ishaq, of Mississauga, ON, postponed her citizenship ceremony last year to challenge the Harper government’s policy prohibiting the wearing of facial coverings during the swearing in ceremony. Ishaq asserted that the ruling was a “personal attack on Muslim women everywhere” (p. A1, A4). • Police thwarted a mass-shooting plot that could have victimized many people, after an investigation of social media regarding a potential shooting rampage planned for Valentine’s Day 2015. Two suspects were apprehended, while another committed suicide before apprehension (p. A2). • Mark Stroz, a Paralympian, froze to death outside his home in sub-zero temperatures after being dropped off by a cab after a night at the pub on 14 February 2015. 901463_00_FM.indd 14 25/01/16 7:48 PM Preface • • • • • • Graeme Hamilton reported on evidence in the trial of Gilles Gargantiel who was knocked unconscious after his car slid off the road and into a ditch. The Sûreté du Québec were notified by an OnStar operator that the driver had gone off the road, and provided gps coordinates. After searching for the driver, police dismissed the operator’s repeated assertions that the driver might be seriously injured. A train engineer noticed the crash site 40 hours later. The driver suffered a fractured neck, six broken ribs, and two broken vertebrae. The driver was found 30 metres from his car suffering from frostbite and hypothermia and eventually had to have his foot amputated. Gargantiel sought $1 million in damages in his lawsuit. Columnist Sarah Boesveld reported on several city mayors who are concerned about the number of missing and murdered Aboriginal women in Canada over the last four decades (p. A6). Twenty-two letters to the editor were posted (p. A9) discussing the implications of the Supreme Court of Canada’s striking down of the ban on assisted suicide. Although most letters were in favour of the decision, others suggested we may be heading in a “wrong direction.” Some suggested the ruling could violate the individual’s “right to life.” Even more letters suggested the government now needs to improve end-of-life care so that this type of decision will be made less often. Ken Coates reported on the fact that Aboriginals need more than an inquiry into missing and murdered women in their community. He noted that the level of violence that Aboriginal women experience is growing (p. A10). Felicia Fonseca reported on the first interview by Omar Alkhani, boyfriend of American Kayla Mueller, who was a hostage held in Syria. Mueller had denied she was married to Alkhani, who had asserted that she was his wife in order to save her. Both were captured in August 2013 after leaving a Doctor’s Without Borders hospital in Aleppo. Mueller was told that if she told the truth, Alkhani would not be harmed. He was released a few months later. Her parents learned of her death in early February 2015. A female acquaintance of nhl player and expectant father Steve Montador found him dead in his Mississauga, ON, home in the early hours of 15 February. Although his death was ruled to be a result of natural causes, Montador had recently joined a group protesting lack of safety for players in the nhl. He had stated in other reports that he had received at least 12 blows to the head in his last three years of playing and that those blows had enduring effects (p. B5). In most cases, the sense of “aloneness” that often accompanies victimization has ramifications that extend far beyond the individual and can often lead to self-imposed isolation or a retreat from society. However, in the best scen­ arios, the victim survives the hardship and goes on to raise a family, socialize, work, and generally live his or her life. 901463_00_FM.indd 15 xv In some rare cases, a victim will raise awareness of his or her story or other similar stories. There have also been extraordinary examples of a victim seeking to change something about his or her world, sometimes going so far as to pursue a change in legislation in order to spare others from going through the same ordeal. 25/01/16 7:48 PM xvi Preface Analysis of the victim is even more practical to the question of criminality. Without a victim or a witness to victimization who is willing to involve the authorities, the crime itself cannot be reported and the system fails to be initiated. This text is, to some degree, an attempt to bring a heightened sense of awareness to the victim. In fact, the victim is often the only witness to his or her own victimization. He or she is, after all, in need of the greatest protection and support, for without victim/ witness co-operation, the criminal justice system often grinds to a halt, even if the process has been initiated by a courageous person. In order to fully explore victims and victimization in a coherent manner, this book covers four main themes. The first two chapters provide background to the subject and explain the terminology as well as some of the issues involved in the study of victims. Chapters 3 and 4 address the second theme: the categor­ ization of victims within the victim–­ victimizer interaction. In these chapters, we will review historical ideas of victimization, and consider how they have 901463_00_FM.indd 16 affected current explanations. Chapters 5 to 11 turn to the third theme, an explora­ tion of specific groups of victims and the challenges posed by their unique circumstances. Finally, chapters 12 and 13 discuss the aftermath of victimization. In particular, these two chapters examine the effects of victimization, the criminal justice responses available to victims, and innovations that address how we administer justice for victims. Although determining who is the victim is easy in many crime stories, the real work in victimology comes when we pull back the layers of circumstance and examine in greater detail the totality of the incident. In effect, this book is about encouraging and facilitating a deeper study and a “pulling back of layers.” As you begin to build a vocabulary and background in this field of study, you will be encouraged, through the chapter material and the critical thinking questions, to broaden your understanding of what it means to be a victim, to explore how society classifies and treats its victims, and to question where victimology is heading as a discipline. 25/01/16 7:48 PM Introduction Who Is a Victim? T he study of victims is well established. For centuries, different groups of people with varying interests have examined victims of harm. Only in the last 20 to 30 years have we given this study a name: victimology. In fact, as of this writing, the word “victimology” is so new to our vernacular that is it not recognized in many wordprocessing packages. If one thinks of all the possible kinds of harm that can be inflicted onto people, one can imagine the many kinds of victims that could be included in this discipline. For example, there are victims of cancer, hiv/aids, or other diseases. There are victims of genocide, such as Holocaust victims and the victims of ethnic cleansing in Rwanda. There are victims of accidents or of natural disasters, such as the victims of Hurricane Katrina, which devastated Louisiana and, to a lesser extent, its neighbouring states. This same area has, more recently, been re-victimized by a massive oil spill. There are also victims of crimes or of injustices, such as those who have been wrongly convicted of a crime. All of these examples show that people can become victims by being physically, financially, or emotionally harmed. Victims can also be courageous: they can tell their stories, seek justice, heal their bodies, resume their lives, and seek counselling. One can be a willing victim, a victim of circumstance, of practical jokes, and/or of mean pranks. In some cases, victims can be seen as 901463_01_Introduction.indd 1 contributing to their own victimization; in other cases they can be perceived as innocent of any wrongdoing. Clearly being a victim is not an uncommon or limited experience. All of us have been a victim of some form of harm at some point in our lives. While victimology considers various types of victims, it does not include the study of animals: although animals can also be victims, they cannot communicate their experiences as effectively. Therefore, the focus of this book will be on human victims, particularly those of crime, because it is in the context of crim­ inology that we find the most information and discussion about the victim’s role. Definitions of Victim Given the multitude of ideas about what victimization is and who can be victimized, establishing an exact definition of the word “victim” is difficult. Shedding some light on the history of the subject may help. The word comes from the Latin victimia, referring to a consecrated animal, or a living sacrifice, offered to a deity. The Online Etymology Dictionary (n.d.) asserts that the term was used as early as 1497 to refer to a living creature that was killed and offered as a sacrifice to a deity or supernatural power; the first recorded use of the word referring to a person was circa 1690 and referred to someone who was tortured, hurt, or killed by another. By 1718, the term was also used to describe a person who was 25/01/16 7:36 AM 2 Victimology oppressed or taken advantage of by some power or situation. The term victimize was coined circa 1830. Currently, “victim” means any living animal who experiences injury, loss, or hardship due to any cause: • A person who is killed, injured, or otherwise harmed by another: a victim of a criminal act. • A live animal offered in religious sacrifice: a lamb became a sacrificial victim. • A person who is made to suffer from an act, situation, condition, or circumstance: a victim of oppression, tyranny, or war. • A person who suffers harm as a result of a voluntary undertaking: a victim of drug addiction. • A person who is taken advantage of; for example, who is tricked or defrauded: a victim of a practical joke. Legal Definitions of Victim The Criminal Code of Canada (2007 [ccc]) includes in its definition of “victim” any victim of an alleged offence (ccc, s. 2, “victim”). If we were to extrapolate from this basic definition, a victim under the ccc is any person who has been subjected to the acts of an alleged offender who has presumably violated the law as dictated by the same code. A person is officially an offender only when he or she “has been determined by a court to be guilty of an offence, whether on acceptance of a plea of guilty or on a finding of guilt” (ccc, s. 2, “offender”). The Corrections and Conditional Release Act [ccra] (1992) more clearly defines the term: victim in respect of an offence, means an individual who has suffered physical 901463_01_Introduction.indd 2 or emotional harm, property damage, or economic loss, as a result of the commission of an offence (CCRA, s. 2 “victim” 2015). Note that this definition includes not only the direct victim of an offence but also other victims who have been rendered incapacitated in some way. These victims are most often members of the direct victim’s immediate family as defined in the ccra. However, it is possible that another representative of the incapacitated victim can also be a victim, as the former cannot defend him or herself. In this case a victim can be defined as a legal representative of someone who has been incapacitated. This person may or may not be a member of the immediate family. As we can see from these two definitions, the ccra has a much more comprehensive definition of the term than does the ccc. As is the case with all law, the ccc is very restrictive, and much depends on its interpretation. The ccra and ccc examples also show that definitions depend on the source explaining the term. The definition of “victim” varies depending on how a person who has suffered harm interacts with the system he or she is engaging with and on the politics of that system. For the purposes of this text, victim is defined by a more traditional sense of the word: one who is killed, injured, or otherwise harmed by another. Public Order Crimes Also called “consensual offences,” “victimless crimes,” “nuisance offences,” or “vice offences,” public order crimes are crimes or norm violations that threaten public order but, for a myriad of reasons, have no clear identifiable victim. These crimes can range in levels of seriousness 25/01/16 7:36 AM Introduction Who Is a Victim? from minor (e.g., littering, loitering, public drunkenness, etc.) to significantly more serious (prostitution, illegal drug use, illicit drug sales, etc.). What they all have in common is that the victim and/ or the offender willingly consent to being victimized (for example someone who buys and then uses illegal drugs) and/or the victim is not clearly identifiable (for example, who is the victim when someone litters or tags a public park wall with graffiti?). As well, the seriousness of these offences can vary from place to place or from time to time. For example, drinking and driving is a significant crime in Canada. But driving while impaired has not always been such a serious offence in this country. Only recently, with increased public awareness of this issue and the potential damage it can cause, has there been an increase in the penalties for this crime. Section 253 of the Criminal Code of Canada includes the following to define the operation of a vehicle while impaired: (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not, (a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or (b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred ­millilitres of blood. 901463_01_Introduction.indd 3 3 (2) For greater certainty, the reference to impairment by alcohol or a drug in paragraph (1)(a) includes impairment by a combination of alcohol and a drug. Penalties for impaired driving can range from fines and/or suspension of driving privileges to a period of incarceration, depending on a number of factors. However, this is not the case in all parts of the world. Although there is little doubt that public order crimes cause harm, the question is whether there is enough harm to cause a more serious response by the criminal justice system. More recently, Canadians have been debating the legalization of marijuana, as have many other places around the world. However the question of who is being harmed is a complicated one. If an individual chooses to use drugs or alcohol regularly on weekends, should this behaviour warrant an arrest? What if the use is daily and this person becomes addicted? Should the addict be arrested or is another response more appropriate? If the victim consents to the crime—if the person who purchases the product is the person who takes it—has a crime really occurred? Traditionally, these crimes were referred to as victimless crimes, for the reasons mentioned above. However “victimless crime” is really a mis­nomer: even with no clear victim, primary and secondary victims (see Chapter 2) still can be affected by these crimes. Public order crimes have been deemed as harmful to society at some level, if not necessarily to the individual. For example, Wilson and Kelling (1982) argue that crimes of disorder, such as littering, graffiti, and spitting, actually 25/01/16 7:36 AM 4 Victimology may cause significant harm because they signal to would-be offenders that the space where this happens is uncared for. This appearance of neglect can attract a stronger criminal element and decrease the quality of life for people who live in or near the uncaredfor area. Family and friends of people addicted to alcohol and/or drugs may also suffer as a result of the addict’s selfvictimization. Dealers of illegal drugs may have links to higher end producers of these products who may or may not in turn be linked to organized crime (such as drug cartels or various terrorist groups that rely on drug sales to fund their operations). The issues are complex. Definitions of Victimology The discipline of victimology is wide in scope, depending on how one defines the concepts of “victim” and “harm.” Definitions are crucial to victimology as they determine what and who is studied. Traditionally, victimology has been overshadowed by the study of trends and patterns among crime victims; however, as mentioned above, the field incorporates other types of victims, such as those who suffer traumatic loss, become victims of disease, and so on. Victimology also examines the factors that affect victims, recognizing that victims do not exist in a social vacuum but are situationally tied to their respective offenders. For the purposes of this text, victimology is defined as the study of victims and the social context in which they exist. Although victimology emerged from criminology (the study of crime), the 901463_01_Introduction.indd 4 two are different fields. Traditionally offender-focused, criminology offers theories of crime that describe and explain trends in offenders’ actions, as well as theories of crime prevention that focus on reducing an individual’s potential for committing criminal acts. In essence, victimology is the study of the other side of the criminal event. Victimologists also study crime, but they do so specifically from the victim’s perspective, providing insight into the challenges faced by victims and potential victims. Organization of the Text This book is organized in a way that we hope will allow the reader to easily process a large amount of information. First, this Introduction and Chapter 1 offer background on the discipline and on terminology used by victimologists. Chapter 2 is dedicated to measurement issues around victims of crime—because learning about victims and victimization has several obstacles. Understanding how we know what we know is crucial to understanding this subject. Chapters 3 and 4 offer summaries of many of the t­ heories that guide our current understanding of and thinking about victimization. Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 address ­specific criminal events, from the most serious (such as homicide) to the less severe (such as fraud and white collar crime). The less physical injury that is involved in victimization, the more controversial the issues surrounding these crimes and the resources allocated to them become. Chapters 9, 10, and 11 are dedicated to issues that transcend any specific crime. In Canada, being Aboriginal (Chapter 9) significantly 25/01/16 7:36 AM Introduction Who Is a Victim? increases one’s risk for victimization for a number of reasons. Other factors that increase risk of victimization are poverty and economic and/or social dependence (Chapter 10). Chapter 11 looks at bullying, an issue that has received increasing attention over the last decade. The chapter looks at how bullying can transform over time and place, moving beyond the schoolyard and into the workplace. Finally, the remaining chapters look to the aftermath of crime. Chapter 12 summarizes some of the effects of victimization and the options for victims who decide to engage with the criminal justice system in order to seek justice. The last chapter is dedicated to other effects of victimization and how one recovers from trauma. Summary At a most basic level, victims are people to whom harm has been done. Anyone who has experienced harm can claim victim status, whether that harm is in the form of disease, a natural disaster, or a prank. Perhaps the most identifiable type of victim is a crime victim. We hear or read about criminal events on a daily basis in news reports, in crime novels, or in television shows such as Law & Order or Flashpoint. Although this text focuses on 5 the crime victim, keep in mind all forms of victimization as you read the following chapters. When we encounter reports or dramatizations of crime, most of us are conditioned to think about the offender before the victim. Stories of victimization are often stories of the offender. We usually know the name of the offender but not of the victim. We hear what the offender has done but understand less about what the victim has experienced. Victimology takes the opposite approach. Therefore, in this text we will consider the victim first. We will examine victims of various types of crime in Canada, especially homicide, sexual assault, and fraud; and the victimization of particular groups, such as Aboriginal peoples, homeless people, and prisoners. In later chapters, we will discuss the aftermath of victimization and recovery methods, demonstrating the extraordinary and heroic actions that many victims take—often without the public support that is afforded the offender—in order to reclaim their lives, even if doing so isn’t easy and even when they do not always succeed. By addressing these topics, this text focuses the study of crime on the victim and seeks to contextualize the victim in ways that are often overlooked. Critical Thinking Questions 1. How does the definition of “victim” impact the way we view victimization? 2. Why do you think we are more concerned with the offender than with the victim when we look at criminal events? 901463_01_Introduction.indd 5 25/01/16 7:36 AM 6 Victimology 3. Can an individual be both an offender and a victim in the same situation? Give three examples where this might occur. 4. How might an individual be victimized by witnessing the victimization of another person? 5. Are first responders (e.g., police, firefighters, ambulance workers, and hospital staff) victimized when they respond to situations where people are hurt? Why or why not? 901463_01_Introduction.indd 6 25/01/16 7:36 AM Chapter 1 Understanding Victimology Learning Objectives After reading this chapter, you will be able to •• •• •• •• situate our current understanding of victims in a historical context; understand that victimization is a relatively common occurrence; recognize basic trends of victimization in Canada; and identify some of the hidden costs of victimization. Introduction This chapter will discuss how we have come to adopt certain concepts about victims in our historical and legal institutions. Although victims have been defined in legal terms, such terms have been shaped by historical events. The way we understand victims of crime informs our definitions of victimization, and this understanding shapes current trends in the subject. Most recently, we have seen a renewed interest in the role of the victim, particularly in fields that focus on criminal justice systems. A Historic View of the Role of the Victim The modern criminal justice system is a relatively recent entity. The system of common law—so named because it is based on a system of laws applied to all people—originated during the reign of King Henry II, in England’s Middle Ages. Prior to the emergence of this formalized system of dealing with 901463_02_ch01.indd 7 offenders, there existed only a set of informal rules regarding conduct between people. Serious crimes were identified as mala in se, or offences that are in and of themselves wrong or said to go against nature. A victim was not only expected to state that he or she had been harmed if it was not obvious to onlookers but was also expected to be part of the process of exacting justice on the offender. Justice, or retribution, where one exacts punishment in retaliation for harm that has been done to someone, was the responsibility of the victim and his or her friends and family. Anthropological studies offer excellent examples of this system. Box 1.1 outlines an event in the Dobe !Kung tribe as it was told to Canadian anthropologist Richard B. Lee (1979). The case of Hxome and Gau illustrates how a dispute led to a series of events resulting in death and how early informal justice systems may have worked. The dispute remained unresolved after Hxome was killed. One family had lost a family member, while the other family had not. 25/01/16 7:37 AM 8 Victimology Box 1.1 The Case of Debe (Dobe !Kung) From 1963 to 1969, Canadian anthropologist Richard B. Lee (1979) documented the activities of the Dobe !Kung, a hunting and gathering people of the !Kung San of the Kalahari Desert in Africa. According to Lee, the !Kung were a people without a state; all disputes had to be resolved “from the hearts of the people themselves” (p. 87). While Lee was present, they lived in relative peace. However, discussions with the tribe members revealed that 22 homicides and 15 serious injuries had occurred between 1920 and 1955. Lee also found that feuds accounted for 15 of the homicides and that one killing was usually followed by another in retaliation. When there were a string of such homicides, the surviving !Kung would discuss the case by comparing his or her situation to others that were similar to it as relayed in oral tradition. Several !Kung informants recalled the killings of Hxome and Gau. This incident began when Debe asked Bo for his sister-in-law Tisa’s hand in marriage and Bo refused because he wanted to make Tisa his second wife. An argument ensued, in which Bo tried to kill Debe’s younger sister by shooting an arrow at her, which barely missed, and then tried to kill Debe. Debe’s father, Hxome, came to his son’s defence, while another man, Samkau, came to Bo’s aid by shooting an arrow at Debe. When Hxome retaliated by spearing Samkau in the chest, Gau, Samkau’s father, joined the struggle. Fighting between the men continued, resulting in the death of Hxome. Sometime after the murder, Debe’s namesake complained to Debe that it was wrong for Samkau to have a father while Debe did not. The elder Debe agreed and decided to kill Bo because he had started the fight. After further consideration, he decided to kill Gau instead. Both Hxome and Gau were landowners and senior men; killing Gau would result in a dead landowner on both sides. Debe walked into Gau’s camp and shot him three times with arrows. Gau’s people did not protect him from this attack but did disarm Debe when he tried to stab Gau. The landowner died shortly thereafter. Fearing another retaliatory homicide, the two !Kung families brought in a healer to mediate the dispute. Wanting retribution for the loss of his father, Debe reasoned that Gau’s life was equal to Hxome’s and that for balance to be restored, Gau was the appropriate target, even though Gau had been defending his son. Gau’s people did not protect Gau when Debe came for him because they understood that his death would restore some balance. To ensure that this balance was maintained, they later brought in a mediator. If retribution was deemed necessary in early common law, the community could agree on the appropriate 901463_02_ch01.indd 8 sentence. In other cases, the offender might be asked to pay restitution in an amount that would make the victim whole again. In law, this concept of re-establishing balance is referred to as lex talonis, from the Latin lex, meaning “law,” and talonus, meaning “retaliation”; it is popularly known by the Old Testament phrase “an eye for an eye,” which decrees that an offender’s punishment should be the same as the violation. The underlying philosophy of such a system is victim-centred. Victims participated in reaching judgment 25/01/16 7:37 AM 1 against their offenders, carried out the punishments, and received the rewards of retribution. Punishments were guided by the principle of deterrence, which aims to exact justice and to dissuade the of­ fender from doing harm again. This concept assumes that witnesses to the punishment would also be deterred from ever committing the harm. In this way, deterrence acts as a form of prevention. To achieve these objectives, the punishment had to be strong enough to help restore the balance of the community and those offended and had to remove any potential gain achieved by the offender in committing the harmful act. Finally, it also had to serve as a preventive measure for other members of the community. As we moved from smaller communities to larger, more agrarian ones, we also moved from a feudal to a more formalized justice system. The introduction of common laws is a good example of this change. Serious crimes moved from the concept of mala in se to mala prohibita, or acts that were against laws. Using these laws to their advantage, feudal barons began laying claim to any compensation made to victims (Schafer, 1968). These members of the nobility successfully argued that serfs who had received retribution for being harmed ignored the damage that was ultimately done to the landowner, given that he had lost income, workers, and/or labour. The nobility redefined harm against victims as harm against the state. As “heads of state,” the barons received compensation for the victim’s losses and had the option of giving a portion of the payment to the victim. Consequently, victims were recast into 901463_02_ch01.indd 9 Understanding Victimology 9 the role of “witness” to the harm that was done to them. Society’s increased urbanization caused many of its systems to become less self-sufficient and more interdependent. In 1887, German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies described this relationship as moving from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft. The former refers to the state of social existence found in small, tightly knit communities where traditional family and kinship values predominate. For the community to survive, it must work together as a single unit to grow food, make clothes, and provide for all of the community’s other needs. Failure to do so can affect the whole community. These societies function autonomously, and self-reliance is paramount for their survival. The latter term refers to a more rational and less personable relationship based on interdependence between the parts of society. These societies are characterized by more diverse groups in which individuals pursue their own self-­interest over collective goals. This transition was also found in the justice system, which became a criminal justice system that moved further away from the victim and focused more on the actions of the offender. The aim of such a system was to protect people from crime. The current system has not strayed far from this model. We have a criminalcentred system of common laws that, with the aid of the victim as witness, is aimed at deterring and punishing criminals. Crimes continue to be considered against the state or, in Canada, the Crown. This relationship is reflected in the identification of law cases, where the “R” in the title (e.g., R. v. Lavallee) refers to the British monarch—“Regina” 25/01/16 7:37 AM 10 Victimology for a queen and “Rex” for a king, depending on who wears the crown at the time of the case. This legal infrastructure reflects the interests in protecting the state, which a victim must call upon to act on his or her behalf. The state, in turn, recognizes that it cannot expect a solitary citizen to fight its huge social machinery and stands in for the victim, theoretically to bring its power to bear on the victim’s plight. The Victims’ Movement in Canada The study of victims initially emerged out of investigating the treatment of prisoners in both world wars. In particular, the horrors inflicted by the Nazis on prisoners in Germany and throughout Europe became the impetus for the recognition of victims. During and after these wars, we also saw efforts to compensate soldiers for the suffering they endured. By the 1960s, state welfare systems in the United States began to compensate victims of crime for some offences. By the latter part of the decade, the first compensation programs in Canada indemnified police officers injured during the commission of their duties and had expanded to include other groups. Limited provincial monies were made available to selected victims of crime who were deemed eligible for compensation. Eventually, the federal government followed suit, granting funds to all provinces and territories to encourage the development of criminal injuries compensation programs and financing legal aid programs designed to help those who could not afford legal representation. By the early 1980s, criminal 901463_02_ch01.indd 10 injuries compensation programs existed in all provinces and territories, established by provincial/territorial statute. The victims who were eligible for this service and the dollar amounts awarded, however, remained limited. Also gaining prominence at this time were the efforts of the Women’s and the Civil Rights movements in both Canada and the United States. In addition to increasing awareness of issues such as the effects of racism and discrimination was the idea of the “glass ceiling,” where women were not promoted beyond certain levels in various organizations or were not paid the same as men for doing the same work. The Women’s Movement also pointed to the unfair treatment of women who were victims of intimate partner violence or sexual assault and who were blamed for their own victimization, not believed when recounting their victimization, or blatantly ignored by the criminal justice system. This focus sparked awareness of all victims who used the Canadian criminal justice system. Calls for more sensitivity toward victims, more victim participation in the judicial process, and access to more information regarding offenders emerged out of these initial advocacy movements. By 1972, the first Canadian transition houses for w ­ omen in crisis were operating in Alberta and British Columbia. The country’s first sexual assault centres opened in Vancouver, BC, two years later. From the mid-1980s to the 1990s these programs grew across Canada. It soon became clear that crime victims needed more than financial resources to help them recover. They required information, social and/or other types of services, and, in some cases, counselling 25/01/16 7:37 AM 1 and other forms of support. Eventually, a director of Victim Services was appointed in all jurisdictions and/or a Victim Services Division was established. Victim services based in courts, police services, and the community were newly developed or adjusted for the needs of crime victims. Several federal legislative reforms of the 1990s changed how the Canadian criminal justice system interacted with victims, particularly people who had reported sexual assault. Sexual assault laws were amended in 1983 to bring them more in line with standard assault laws (C-127, 1983). In the latter half of the 1990s several bills were introduced, including one that recognized the ­special cases of child sex-trade workers (­C-27, 1997). The new millennium saw Canada’s first Victims’ Bill of Rights in Manitoba (2001). In 2003, the federal government also increased funding for victim compensation. In 2015, the federal government established the first ever Canadian Victim Bill of Rights. More about this document can be found in Chapter 12. Canadian Trends in Victimization When we compare official crime rates (i.e., crimes reported to police) between Canada and the United States, Canada ranks lower in all violent crimes but has some higher rates of property crimes (Gannon, 2001). In 2000, Canada had a homicide rate of 1.8 per 100,000 persons while the United States had a rate of 5.5. Roughly one-third of Canadian homicides that year involved a victim who was shot, compared to two-thirds 901463_02_ch01.indd 11 Understanding Victimology 11 of American homicides. Similarly, Canadians were less likely to be victims of what Americans refer to as “aggra­­vated assault,” known in Canada as assault levels II and III, or “assault causing bod­ ily harm” and “assault with a weapon,” respectively (Canada = 143/100,000; United States = 324/100,000). Figure 1.1 illustrates that looking at trends over the long term can provide us with more meaningful data. Boe (2004), looking at crime trends from 1981 to 2001 and examining five comparable crimes (homicide, aggravated assault including attempted murder, robbery, burglary/break and enter, and motor vehicle theft) in Canada, the United States, and England and Wales, notes that since the nineties, Canada and the United States have had almost identical crime rates on these five comparable crimes. England and Wales have had signifi­c antly h ­ igher crime rates per 100,000 popu­lation when compared to both Canada and the United States. Also, in all three regions, these comparable crime rates have been declining, on average, since 1981. It is important to note that this list is not exhaustive, and does not include all property or violent crime types. Boe states that this is because for crimes such as rape or sexual assault, arson, and theft and/or larceny, these countries did not have comparable data. Nevertheless, this trend data demonstrates that, when looking at most violent crimes in comparison with these two other geographical regions, Canada has a relatively low crime rate. Figure 1.2 singles out just the violent crimes for these same three regions illustrating a slightly different story over this same time period. Separating out 25/01/16 7:37 AM 12 Victimology 5,000 4,500 Rate per 100,000 4,000 3,500 England & Wales 3,000 United States 2,500 2,000 1,500 Canada 1,000 500 0 1981 Figure 1.1 1986 1991 1996 2001 Annual Rates of Five Comparable Crimes* (per 100,000) between Canada, United States, and England and Wales * homicide, aggravated assault including attempted murder, robbery, burglary/break and enter, and motor vehicle theft source: Boe, R. (2004). Comparing crime and imprisonment trends in the United States, England, and Canada from 1981 to 2001. Research Branch, Correctional Services Canada, p. 9. Retrieved 24 February 2015, from www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/092/b29_e.pdf 800 Rate per 100,000 700 United States 600 500 England & Wales 400 300 Canada 200 100 0 1981 Figure 1.2 1986 1991 1996 2001 Annual Rates of Violent Crimes* (per 100,000) between Canada, United States, and England and Wales * homicide, aggravated assault including attempted murder, and robbery. source: Boe, R. (2004). Comparing crime and imprisonment trends in the United States, England, and Canada from 1981 to 2001. Research Branch, Correctional Services Canada, p. 11. Retrieved 24 February 2015, from www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/092/b29_e.pdf 901463_02_ch01.indd 12 25/01/16 7:37 AM 1 property offences in this group shows that the United States has had significantly higher violent crimes rates over this ­20-year period, compared to Canada and England and Wales. What is interesting to note, however, is that even though there was a downward trend in violent crime for the United States, England and Wales have seen significant growth over this same time period, actually surpassing the United States in the late 1990s. Canada’s rate of violent crime has remained consistently low over this same time period. More recent Canadian data provides a detailed picture of victimization in this country. The 2009 General Social Survey (gss) polled Canadians aged 15 and older about their victimization experiences. According to Perreault and Brennan (2010), just over one-quarter of those polled stated that they had experienced some form of victimization in the 12 months preceding the survey. This translates into an estimated 7.4 million Canadians who reported victimization during 2009, and remains relatively unchanged since 2004. The majority of these victimization experiences were non-violent (70 per cent). The most common victimization experience reported was theft of personal property (34 per cent) followed by theft of household property (13 per cent). Vandalism (11 per cent), breakins (7 per cent), and motor vehicle theft (5 per cent) accounted for the remainder of non-violent crime reported on this survey. Three in ten victimizations reported to gss surveyors were violent victimizations, but the majority of these were physical assault (19 per cent), sexual assault (8 per cent) and robbery 901463_02_ch01.indd 13 Understanding Victimology 13 (4 per cent). It is important to note that homicide is not included in the category of violent victimization in this survey because victims of homicide are unable to report the crimes committed against them. Homicide victimization, however, is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. Although rates of violent victimization have remained stable since 2004, the rate of theft of personal property has grown 16 per cent since 2004. Perreault (2015) report that the highest rates (per 1,000 population) of violent victimization in 2014 were in the western provinces: Manitoba (108), Saskatchewan (104), Newfoundland and Labrador (55), and Quebec (59), had the lowest rates in the country. In Canada, violent crime typically seems to be highest in the west, and lower in the east. This trend has not changed since the first gss survey results were printed. Perreault (2015) note that the gss shows that those most at risk for violent victimization were between the ages of 15 and 24 (163/1,000). Members of this age category were 1.4 to 12.5 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than the other age groups polled. Easton, Furness, and Brantingham (2014) report that each year, about 3 per cent of 18-year-olds are at risk of victimization and that they are routinely the single age with the highest risk of victimization year over year. Rates of victimization in Canada were lowest among the elderly (Perreault, 2015). Those between the ages of 18 and 30 are 6.5 times more likely to be victimized when compared to individuals over the age of 80 (Easton, Furness, & Brantingham, 2014). A graph illustrating the age/victimization distribution can be found (Figure 2.2) 25/01/16 7:37 AM 14 Victimology in Chapter 2, which discusses measurement issues. Perreault (2015) also found that despite the fact that women were less likely than men to engage in acts of violence, they were more likely to be a victim of violence (­women = 85/1,000; men = 67/1,000). Women were more than five times more likely to be sexually assaulted (women = 37/1,000; men = 5/1,000), while men were more likely to be physically assaulted (women = 59/1,000; men = 54/1,000) and to be victims of robbery (women = 5/1,000; men = 8/1,000). Easton, Furness, and Brantingham (2014), while looking at 2009 gss data, compared male and female victimization patterns and a number of crime types. The results of these investigations can be found in Table 1.1. Easton, Furness, and Brantingham (2014) also note that being married was associated with a significant reduction in violent crime victimization risk Table 1.1 Gender of Victims by Offence Crime Type % Male % Female Violent offences 54.8 45.2 Assault 64.5 35.5 Sex assault 27.4 72.6 Robbery 60.0 40.0 Attempted murder 61.4 38.6 Property offences 49.5 51.5 Break and enter 50.8 49.2 Motor vehicle theft 55.8 44.2 Personal theft 42.8 57.2 Household theft 55.8 44.2 source: Easton, S., Furness, H., & Brantingham, P. (2014). The cost of crime in Canada: 2014 Report. Fraser Institute, p. 29. Retrieved 24 February 2015, from www.fraserinstitute.org 901463_02_ch01.indd 14 (25.9 per cent, married; 55.1 per cent, single). This relationship was somewhat reversed for property crime (46.8 per cent, married; 29.4 per cent, single). Figure 1.3 illustrates how one’s level of education may also be related to different types of victimization risk. Those who appear not to have finished university, college, or high school reported the highest violent victimization rates in 2009, while those with completed degrees seem to have lower risk. Those who reported most property victimization had also had only some university or high school education along with those who had some of the highest levels of education. On average, those with lower levels of education were more insulated against property crime victimization, while those with the highest levels of education were more insulated against violent crime. This is supported by the fact that property crime victims reported yearly incomes 29 per cent higher than violent crime victims and the average income of victims of violence in Canada is nearly 20 per cent lower than the average respondent in the 2009 survey. Figure 1.4 shows that those who were in school or looking for work were most likely to report victimization. This group also tends to be younger and more likely single, therefore compounding victimization risk. Retired individuals seem to be most insulated from victimization risk, reporting the lowest rates of victimization over this same time period. Turning to the victimization rates of minorities, Perreault (2015) report that those who self-­identified as Aboriginal were more than twice as likely to be victimized than non-Aboriginals (160/1,000 and 74/1,000 respectively). 25/01/16 7:37 AM 1 Understanding Victimology 15 Violent crimes Property crimes Graduate Bachelor’s College diploma Trade diploma Some university Some college Some trade High school Some high school Elementary 0 Figure 1.3 5 10 15 Percentage 20 25 Victimization in Violent and Property Offences, by Academic Standing, 2009 source: Easton, S., Furness, H., & Brantingham, P. (2014). The cost of crime in Canada: 2014 Report. Fraser Institute, p. 30. Retrieved 24 February 2015, from www.fraserinstitute.org This is supported by Easton, Furness and Brantingham (2014), who noted that the three per cent of the population who self-­identified as First Nations, Métis, or Inuit reported five per cent of all victimizations in 2009. In addition, Aboriginals were represented in seven per cent of all assaults and eight per cent of all sexual assaults. Immigrants who migrated prior to 2005 were almost four times less likely (45/1,000) to report violent victimization than the Aboriginal respondents (Perreault, 2015). Those who 901463_02_ch01.indd 15 immigrated five years prior to the survey were least likely to report violent victimization (40/1,000). Easton, Furness, and Brantingham (2014) report that those who identified themselves as part of a visible minority were either on par or at slightly lower risk for victimization when compared to the Canadian population. The Costs of Victimization The costs associated with victimization are extensive and difficult to calculate. We must consider many 25/01/16 7:37 AM 16 Victimology School Looking for work Other Working Child care Illness Maternity or paternity Volunteering, other childcare Household work Retired 0 Figure 1.4 5 10 15 20 25 Percentage 30 35 40 Likelihood of Reporting Being Victimized, by Employment Status, 2009 source: Easton, S., Furness, H., & Brantingham, P. (2014). The cost of crime in Canada: 2014 Report. Fraser Institute, p. 31. Retrieved 24 February 2015, from www.fraserinstitute.org variables, including but not limited to the type of victimization experienced, physical damage to the victim (i.e., injury), psychological trauma, loss of work and/or income, and so on. What value to place on these ex­ periences and losses is of significant debate (Easton, Furness, & Brantingham, 2014). One way to think about cost to the victim is to consider direct costs and indirect costs incurred by victims. Direct costs are those that the victim directly experiences and that may have to be paid out or lost as a result of the victimization. In some cases, such as in the theft of or damage to an item, 901463_02_ch01.indd 16 the direct cost of replacement can be easily estimated. Another cost to the victim and his or her family is the loss of productivity, which often results in loss of income. Just over 30 per cent of the 2004 gss respondents reported that their daily activities had been disrupted for one day, while 27 per cent had experienced a disruption of two or three days, and 18 per cent experienced a disruption of more than two weeks. Along with this loss could come the added expense of new home-security features, which 30 per cent of the survey respondents who reported victimization had installed. This figure compares 25/01/16 7:37 AM 1 with 10 per cent of the non-victimized population. Victims may also incur several in­ direct costs. These are costs incurred for services that are funded by other means, such as taxpayer dollars. For example, a victim might need medical care for physical injuries. In Canada, this care is covered for the most part by the Canadian health care system. However, victims might incur additional direct costs for further care, such as physiotherapy, which may not be covered by provincial or supplemental insurance policies. Dealing with the trauma of being victimized, especially in the case of violent crime, may also be an added expense. Treatment by a psychiatrist is covered and is therefore an indirect cost to the victim, but treatment by a psychologist might not be covered by the health care system, depending on the province in which one lives. If the crime is reported to the police, we must also add the cost of the investigation, any necessary court costs, Table 1.2 Understanding Victimology and the costs of imprisonment or other forms of punishment. But even if the victim does not file a report, he or she may need to use other public services, such as crisis centres, shelters, social workers, and so on. Easton, Furness, and Brantingham (2014) have offered one estimate of the cost of victimization to the victim. Using estimates of various costs, they have come up with a figure for the cost of selected crimes for 2009 and 2012. These tabulations are offered in Table 1.2. Although able to estimate most costs for 2009 using the gss and other data sets, no victimization survey was done in 2012, making these calculations impossible for that specific year. Homicides statistics, however, are calculated every year, and are displayed in the 2012 column of this table. For example, when a victim dies as a result of victimization, the value of an average single human life was calculated in 2009 to be $5.49 million, based on a number of factors, including loss of productivity over a lifetime. In 2009, Summary of the Cost to Victims, 2009 and 2012, in $2012 billions Category 2009 2012 Homicide (life value) 3.35 2.98 Goods stolen or damaged 4.57 N/A 43.61 38.62 Crime prevention time cost Pain and suffering* 4.47 N/A Personal security cost 1.77 N/A Productivity losses 1.56 N/A Business losses 4.0 N/A 0.16 N/A Direct medical costs Total 17 63.7 * Less pain and suffering from homicide, which is identified separately. source: Easton, S., Furness, H., & Brantingham, P. (2014). The cost of crime in Canada: 2014 Report. Fraser Institute, p. 44. Retrieved 24 February 2015, from www.fraserinstitute.org 901463_02_ch01.indd 17 25/01/16 7:37 AM 18 Victimology there were 610 homicides in Canada, totalling a $3.35 billion loss. In 2012, fewer total homicides (543) translates into lower losses ($2.98 billion). The total estimated losses due to theft in 2009, using various measures, is just over $4.5 billion. Clearly the largest number on this table is the calculation for pain and suffering. Easton, Furness, and Brantingham (2014) admit that pain and suffering are very difficult to ­assess. What value do we give these experiences that clearly cost the victim? Using a number of assumptions, including average payouts issued by courts for various crimes, they have estimated that this cost, at $4.67 ­billion in 2009, by far exceeding any other cost. The authors note that how they have estimated these costs may cause debate. Where they may have overestimated costs in some areas, in many areas they did not include numbers (such as the costs specifically incurred by victims’ family members), suggesting that these numbers might be conservative. No matter how we examine the issue, clearly the cost of aiding crime victims is prohibitive. The best defence is to reduce the likelihood that people will be victimized. In other words, preventing victimization can be truly cost-effective. Summary As society became more urban and the justice system more offender-focused, the role of the victim changed from full participant to witness. The issues addressed by the Women’s and the Civil Rights movements of the 1960s helped society “rediscover” the victim. While this recognition has not necessarily been compassionate, victims have been given more of a partnership-type status. The criminal justice system has recently begun to engage the victim as an ally in the identification and apprehension of offenders. This chapter has provided some historical information about the justice system and the role of the victim, as well as trends in Canadian victimization. While some victim characteristics may reduce the risk for certain types of victimization, these same characteristics might enhance risk for others, depending on crime type, victim age, and so on. One of the most compelling arguments offered here is that the costs of victimization, to the victim and to the taxpayer, can be extensive for expenses that may be entirely preventable. Keep these details in mind as you turn a critical eye to the study of victims and the processes in which they engage. Critical Thinking Questions 1. In this chapter we have discussed how the Women’s Movement has improved the response of the criminal justice system for women. How has the Civil Rights Movement done the same for minority groups? 2. Which of the following age groups is most at risk of being victimized? What c­ haracteristics of this group might put it at particular risk? • Teenagers and young adults • People in mid-career • Elderly people 901463_02_ch01.indd 18 25/01/16 7:37 AM 1 Understanding Victimology 19 3. What factors might cause violent crime rates to be higher in western Canada than in other parts of the country? 4. Think about some of the costs that you would incur as a crime victim. What ­public costs do you pay for through your tax dollars? What additional costs would you have to pay for out of your own pocket? 901463_02_ch01.indd 19 25/01/16 7:37 AM Chapter 2 Measuring Victimization Learning Objectives After reading this chapter, you will be able to •• •• •• •• understand the complexities of studying victims of crime; examine obtrusive and unobtrusive methods of studying victims; identify types of data available to researchers who study victims of crime; and understand the importance of asking the appropriate questions and how doing so may alter the responses of research participants. Introduction Types of Victims Understanding victimization is achieved through extensive study. Researchers carefully examine a particular subject or subject group, using various methods to pinpoint issues affecting it. We learned in the previous chapter that the ability to define the concept of victim, which is more difficult than one might think, is key to the study of victims because defining it allows victimologists to include or exclude various group members. However, a good definition is only one facet of the issue of measuring this complex subject. This chapter is concerned with measurement issues beyond the definition of terms, including types of victims, data availability, and the challenges in studying victims. Think about how you would begin to research a victim group. The best way to understand the complications in studying this group is to imagine that you are part of it and to ask yourself the following questions: How would you want to be studied? Would you want to be studied at all? Although the focus of this text is crime victims, we cannot forget that there are other types who fall under the umbrella term of “victim.” For example, if we consider the 2013 train derailment in LacMégantic, QC (see Box 2.1), we can see that this tragedy includes several types of victims. The most obvious victims of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy are the dead and the survivors. However, there are also parents, partners, siblings, friends, and colleagues who were all emotionally devastated by the accident. Could they be considered victims? What about ­people who attended many of the viewings and/or the funerals? At the heart of this issue is the idea of harm and how and when a person experiences harm. To be a victim, is it enough to be affected by something in a negative way? These are difficult questions, and the answers are not often clear. In many ways, we can think of an event like the Lac-Mégantic fire as a pebble dropped into the ocean 901463_03_ch02.indd 20 25/01/16 7:40 AM 2 Measuring Victimization 21 Box 2.1 Tragedy in the Town of Lac-Mégantic In September 2012, a locomotive in the service of Montreal, Maine, & Atlantic Railway Ltd. (mma) received an engine repair that was later found to be inadequate. This engine was eventually attached to a train with 72 cars carrying 7.7 million litres of a highly explosive form of crude oil in substandard railways cars, to the Nantes, Quebec, railway yard. On 5 July 2013, (Lac-Mégantic derailment, 2013; Woods, 2014b), the lone engineer parked the train on a slope, setting seven hand brakes before he left for the night. Near midnight on Friday, the engine, as a result of the faulty repair, caught fire in the yard. Fire crews were called and put out the fire, but while doing so, they cut the power to the main car, which caused the air brakes on the train to bleed off, leaving only the few set hand brakes to hold the train in the yard. The yard was sloped, which caused stress on the hand brakes. The town of L ­ ac-Mégantic lies approximately 10 kilometres downhill from the yard (Woods, 2014a). The train eventually began to slip down the tracks in the early hours of 6 July, picking up speed as it headed into the centre of Lac-Mégantic. As it was the beginning of the weekend, many people were out socializing at the popular hot spot in town, the Musi-Café. The train eventually derailed after picking up significant speed and exploded into a massive firestorm. Many of the train containers carrying the crude continued hurtling towards the main street, breaking open, sending their fiery contents onto the main streets of the town, and towards the bar (Woods, 2014a, 2014b). In all, 47 people died that night, including 27 inside the Musi-Café (Woods, 2014b). Silvie Charron went with a friend to the Musi-Café and was last seen sitting on the patio at 1:15 a.m. “Her friend saw the train arrive quickly and was able to get away at the moment of the derailment and explosion. Madame Charron was seen for the last time at that moment” (Woods, 2014b, para. 18), the report recounts. At that point, the train was travelling at an estimated 100 km/hour (Woods, 2014b). The Toronto Star (Lac-Mégantic derailment, 2013) reports that Jo-Annie Lapointe, a server, along with two other employees of the bar died at their work. Guy Bolduc and Yvan Ricard were performing on stage at the Musi-Café that night. Yvan had stepped out for a cigarette on the patio during the break, which allowed him to escape the disaster, but his friend remained inside, and died in the fire. The paper also reported that Diane Bizier said good night to her boyfriend, Guy Ouellet, after he decided he was tired and wanted to leave. Guy saw the explosions from his window after arriving home and spent the next four hours searching for Diane to no avail. Natacha Gaudreau’s daughter, Estel, used social media to ask if anyone had seen her mom after the blast, and her son Edouard, 13, offered a description of his mother and dna when police arrived to help locate her. Joanie Turmel was celebrating her fortieth birthday that night at the bar with several friends and family members. Most perished in the blast. Genevieve Breton left work at the local pharmacy and went to the Musi-Café to meet her boyfriend. While he escaped the fire, she did not. Lucie Vadnais, who cared for children in a local daycare, also attended the bar that night and perished. The coroner’s report stated that some of the patrons had left earlier in the evening, but could not escape the flames. Nineteen-year-old Frederic Boutin’s body was found in an alley behind his second-story downtown apartment. He had left the bar earlier that continued 901463_03_ch02.indd 21 25/01/16 7:40 AM 22 Victimology evening. “Given the events and the environment, it is probable that his death was quick, without being able to determine the exact duration, and that it was preceded by a loss of consciousness” (Woods, 2014b), the Quebec coroner’s report confirms. Kathy Clusiault, age 24, “ . . .was probably trying to flee her home when the explosions occurred and the flaming oil began running down toward the lake, lighting up the downtown along the way” (Woods, 2014b, para. 3). Her body was found between her home and the Musi-Café lying in the middle of the town’s main street. Before her death she had sent a text message to a friend. She wrote that was heading home to sleep because she had plans with family the following morning. It is suspected she died from injuries from the blast, or of secondary asphyxiation due to the fire (Woods, 2014b). The fire also took many residents of the downtown. Stéphane Lapierre was in the ­Musi-Café building and died in one of four apartments above the bar. Jimmy Sirois and ­Marie-Semie Alliance who lived near the bar both perished in the ensuing fire. Their 18-month-old daughter was not a casualty as she had been taken by grandparents to Woborn, Q ­ uebec, that very night to escape the hot summer heat (Lac-Mégantic d ­ erailment, 2013). Réal Custeau also lived in a downtown apartment and succumbed to the fire. His surviving brother Richard said, “He was a friend for everybody” (Lac Mégantic derailment, 2013). Elsewhere in the downtown core Elianne Parenteau, 93, who had contacted her son the day before, died in her badly burned home, identified only by an artificial hip. Alyssa Charest ­Begnoche, 4, was asleep with her mother, Talitha, and sister, Bianka, when their home was engulfed in smoke and flames. Their bodies were so badly burned that only bone and teeth fragments, 10 days after the derailment, provided confirmation of their identities ­(Lac-Mégantic derailment, 2013; Woods, 2014b). Esthetician Henriette ­Latulippe, who lived in the downtown, and Marie-France Boulet, who owned a dress shop across from the Musi-Café and lived in the apartment above it, also died that night. Serge Rouillard had been receiving treatment for prostate cancer and was reportedly staying in a retirement home demolished in the blast, according to his brother Richard. Another downtown resident, Roger Paquet, an active golfer, also perished in the disaster (Lac-Mégantic d ­ erailment, 2013). According to Woods (2014a), the final report on the disaster stated that the event was the result of a series of human errors over a long period of time, fuelled by a company that was more concerned about profit than safety. Overall, 18 recommendations were made to improve the safety of railway systems in Canada. Just over two months after the disaster, mma filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, unable to pay for even the clean-up costs of the accident (mma bankruptcy, 2013). sources: Lac-Mégantic derailment: Faces of the disaster: The Star has compiled a gallery of portraits and biographical sketches spanning this array of victims in the Lac-Mégantic disaster (10 July 2013). Toronto Star. Retrieved 12 February 2015, from www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/10/lacmagentic_derailment_faces_ of_the_disaster.html; MM&A bankruptcy: Montreal, Maine & Atlantic files for bankruptcy protection after LacMégantic disaster” (8 August 2013). The Huffington Post. Retrieved 12 February 2015, from www.huffingtonpost .ca/2013/08/07/mma-bankruptcy_n_3721237.html; Woods, A. (2014a, August 19). Lax safety measures to blame for Lac-Mégantic tragedy, safety board says: The Transportation Safety Board of Canada identified 18 distinct factors that led to the Lac-Mégantic rail crash, including mechanical problems, unsuitable tank cars carrying crude oil, the cost-conscious rail firm and human error. Toronto Star. Retrieved 12 February 2015, from www.thestar.com/ news/canada/2014/08/19/lax_safety_measures_to_blame_for_lacmgantic_tragedy_transportation_safety_board_ says.html; Woods, A. (2014b, October 8). Quebec coroner puts human faces on Lac-Mégantic disaster: Each of the 47 deaths in the Quebec rail disaster was the result of a human error, coroner reports. Toronto Star. Retrieved 12 February 2015, from www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/08/lacmgantic_deaths_were_violent_and_­ avoidable_quebec_coroners_concludes.html 901463_03_ch02.indd 22 25/01/16 7:40 AM 2 Measuring Victimization 23 Event Outcomes Victimizing Event Primary Victimization Secondary Victimization Tertiary Victimization Figure 2.1 Rippling Effects of Victimization of everyday life. Figure 2.1 illustrates how different types of victims fit into this model. Proximity to the event plays a significant role in reaching consensus about victim status. For example, most people would agree that those who died in the crash and those who survived it are clearly victims in this tragedy, due to their being directly involved in and physically and emotionally harmed by the accident. These people are the most likely to recognize that they have been victims, and others are most likely to identify them as such. Victimologists refer to these obvious victims as primary victims. Many would also agree that the immediate friends and families of those directly involved in the crash are victims too, but not in the same way. In victimological terms, they are known as secondary victims. This type of victim is emotionally close to the primary victim, is often the first to be with him or her after the event, and is often helpful with his or her recovery. The closer the emotional ties, the more a secondary victim 901463_03_ch02.indd 23 is said to “share the pain” of the primary victim. Although not physically harmed by the event, the former’s social proximity to the latter allows him or her to be hurt in other ways. Such victims are less likely to be identified as victims by themselves or others, but they do acknowledge the hardship that has been placed on them because of their relationship to the primary victim and the event. Victims who are not in close social proximity to the primary victim, but who are harmed in some way by the accident, are tertiary victims of the event. In the case of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, these would include the town residents who were saddened by the crash, who knew the families of the victims, and who mourned with them and/or helped in a less intense way. Tertiary victims in this case may also experience some psychological effects, such as refusing to walk near the train tracks or the wreckage or to travel by train, even though they had done so in the past. Although they may not know the primary victims, and may or may not know any of the 25/01/16 7:40 AM 24 Victimology secondary victims, they are nonetheless affected by the event in a negative way. Finally, there are those who are least likely to know either the primary or secondary victims and may or may not be acquainted with the tertiary victims but are moved by the events in some way. These people do not identify as victims and are not recognized as such; they represent event outcomes of the victim­ izing incident. Although the people in this group had nothing to do with the event, their actions are affected because of their knowledge of it. The outcomes are boundless and can be either negative or positive. In the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, positive event outcomes could range from people hugging one another more and sharing how they feel, to increased regulations for railway transportation systems. Negative outcomes include not purchasing property near railways, changing the economic landscape of an area; higher insurance rates for homes and industries around railway yards and tracks; and people becoming anxious when they see railway tankers full of petroleum products rolling in close proximity to their homes, schools, and workplaces. As Figure 2.1 illustrates, the farther one moves temporally and spatially from the victimizing event, the more diffuse the effects and the larger the victim pool. A victim pool is a group of victims who share common characteristics, such as the same offender, offence type, and/or other features. In other words, even though the event may have involved only a few people, the number of secondary victims will be much larger and the number of tertiary victims larger still. Another feature of this model is that as the distance from the event increases, the boundaries between victim 901463_03_ch02.indd 24 types may also become blurry. For example, how would one classify the people who did not live in the downtown area and saw the fiery plumes from a distance that night? Recall that LacMégantic is a small community. The residents on the outskirts of the area that was affected may also have been family and/or personal friends. What about immediate family members of the victims who reside outside of the town or even the province? These distinctions, which consider social and physical proximity, make it more difficult to classify victims. Finally, in mass tragedies such as this, victims can also have multiple statuses in this model. In other words, it is possible to hold more than one categorization. For example, many victims of this tragedy escaped the blast but suffered physiological and psychological injuries as they were trying to get away from the fire. These individuals are primary victims. However they also lost friends and family who were unable to escape the flames. These primary victims are also secondary victims of the fire as they have to cope with the deaths and injuries of others. Although some people who lived outside the downtown were not primary victims, may have lost family members and friends, which makes them secon­ dary victims. Secondary victims may also have friends and family who lost people that the secondary victim did not really know. The secondary victims may then provide moral support for their family and friends by attending memorials and funerals with their surviving friends and family, even though they did not know the primary victim whose life was being honoured. In these cases the secondary victims are also tertiary victims. 25/01/16 7:40 AM 2 Measuring Victimization The idea of measuring something may seem simple enough, but it can be quite complex. Several factors come into play when we think about measuring victimization. First and foremost, individuals may be uncomfortable talking about their experiences. As stated in the introduction to this chapter, researchers must place themselves in the subject’s position. For example, what would be your initial reaction if someone asked you about the last time you were victimized? It is likely that you would respond with some form of resistance. Would you answer the question? Chances are you would not. Under what conditions would you be more inclined to answer? What would you want to know about the researcher? Do you think you would be more or less likely to answer if you had been the victim of a theft? What if you had been sexually assaulted? If you had been victimized twice in the last year, would you want to share your experiences of just one incident or both? What other factors would affect whether and how you answered? These are all very important questions to ask before entering into any victimization study. Your answers not only help you to understand your subject’s point of view, but they also help to determine which research method is most appropriate. Some methods are more obtrusive than others. The following sections discuss some popular techniques and highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each. Obtrusive Methods Obtrusive methods are research practices where the researcher inserts him or herself into the victim’s personal 901463_03_ch02.indd 25 Measuring Victimization 25 space, effectively studying the victim at close range. The discussion below is by no means an exhaustive list of the possible methods that one can use to study victims but is merely meant to illustrate some more commonly used research techniques and to highlight issues with measurement and this vulnerable population. Researchers perform obtrusive studies in several ways. To understand this concept, let us use the example of studying car accident victims. One method that a researcher might consider is attempting to talk with victims of car accidents at the scene; however, doing so would be a challenge. First, it would be highly unlikely that a researcher would be in the proximity of enough car accidents to collect a relatively acceptable sample of participants. Second, it would be inappropriate for a researcher to conduct a study while someone is clearly trying to deal with his or her victimization. Researchers are ethically bound to minimize the amount of harm that may occur in any study they conduct. This ethical code of conduct can limit what a researcher can study. Therefore, the researcher in our example would need another way to find subjects for the study. One alternative is to gather subjects is to use a snowball sampling method. Like a snowball, this method starts off small but grows as subjects are encouraged to participate. In this method, a researcher finds an initial participant by chance and, if the participant agrees to be involved, asks if the research subject knows anyone else who would qualify for and be willing to take part in the study. The researcher asks each participant in turn to refer others to the study. Although this sampling process 25/01/16 7:40 AM 26 Victimology is useful, it also has methodological problems. The quality of the sample is largely influenced by the people that the initial contact recommends. For example, if the researcher’s first contact was a college student who lived in residence, the researcher would get referrals from within that college student’s social network. Such referrals may include other students who live in residence, or other friends, acquaintances, and family members. Then again, the participants may not recommend a family member, not wanting the family member to know about the accident. As a result, the sample will probably not be representative of all car accident victims. In methodological terms, this sample is considered to be biased, or to contain an estimated amount of error. This error is either known or unknown and is created by flaws in study design, such as in the development of the measurement instruments, sample selection, study implementation, or study questions. Snowball samples are appropriate for some research topics, especially in cases where the kind of victimization is severe, the number of people who may have had this experience is very small, and/or there is a reluctance to talk with a researcher because of the sensitive nature of the victimization. In addition, when the topic is particularly sensitive, such as incest survival, the researcher must work harder to earn the trust of one participant and get him or her not only to talk about the experience but also to refer others who might participate. Although using this approach to study incest victims may yield biased results, the very nature of the victimization limits the choice of methods. For example, we could not pass out a questionnaire 901463_03_ch02.indd 26 or conduct a telephone survey on this subject. Many studies done with this group have used snowball samples or other, less obtrusive methods, such as the study of documents generated from reported cases. Asking questions directly of a respondent may be intrusive, but it is one of the most effective ways that we can come to understand social phenomena. We can ask questions in a survey, with or without a researcher present. Talking with someone directly often allows the respondent to gauge whether the interviewer can be trusted and to ask questions about the study. When contacted personally, potential subjects are also less likely to decline an offer to participate in a study. Often, it is the best way to encourage people to engage with a study and is therefore very effective in getting a good response rate. Personal contact also allows the researcher to probe answers that are not clear, thereby ensuring that the answers received are of a very high quality. Online and paper surveys are often the most common form of data gathering because they are less obtrusive and give the participant more anonymity in answering the request for data. Because no one is with them asking the questions, they are also probably less likely to participate. Obtrusive methods do require direct contact with the victim and therefore can be enormously beneficial, but the methods include some risks. In-person interviewing can become very timeconsuming. Talking with a respondent about a victimization experience may also increase the risk of doing harm to the victim for a number of reasons. For example, the interviewer may not be effective. He or she could be intimidating 25/01/16 7:40 AM 2 and willingly or unknowingly try to force the respondent ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment