Hoofdstuk 1: History and perspectives on victimology
1.1 International legal perspective
The crime of genocide
o Could be the starting point of victimology (is not so on paper)
You have Hitler giving a speech about the Young Turks who tried ‘to do’ a genocide on the
Armenian people. He said “who remembers the Armenian?” Just like his idea with the Jews:
wipe them all out and forget about them (aka a genocide: killing people and their culture)
o Genocide convention
o 1948 : Lemkin
Whole family was murdered in the Second World War
Coined (invented) the word genocide
And made sure/was instrumental (active) to make sure that the UN would put together a
genocide convention
Assuring that genocide anywhere in the world (even if it’s ‘legal’) would be
punished
International crimes/ Crimes against humanity”
o 1947 : if this is a man
Primo Levi: If this is a man, aka Survival in Auschwitz
See also Jean Amery At the minds limits
Experiences with the Shoah as important victimological work
International legal perspectives on victimology international law progressed a little bit
o Truth commissions most well-known Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa
o International Criminal Tribunals of Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s
o Rome-statute 1998
o ! but most of this international victimology/criminology is very recent (after the millennium). Most
of the work mentioned above does not refer to victimology
Benjamin Mendelsohn
o Rumanian Lawyer
o Coined the word “victimology” in 1947
We say the starting point of victimology is in 1948 but he already mentioned it in a paper
related to the positions of victims in criminal law
Hans Von Hentig
o German criminal law professor who wrote the book ‘the criminal and his victim’
Wrote it in 1948 start of victimology as an academic discipline
o His inspiration was World War I and he wrote:
“why in history has everyone always focused on the guy with the big stick, the hero, the
activist, to the neglect of the poor slob who is at the end of the stick, the victim, the passivist
– or maybe, the poor slob (in bandages) isn’t all that much of a passivist victim – maybe he
asked for it?”
It raised the question whether the study of crime is not too one sided
It’s always about the perpetrator and neglected the role of the victim
But he did not talk much about the consequences of victimization like the
rest of the victimology after him
But more about the individual role that the victim plays in the development
of crime
It had a positive side: prevention of crime, more attention to the
victim’s power
But also a negative side: he does a bit of victim blaming
, Who is most likely to be a victim?
o Young Boy or Old Lady
The young boy because he is younger and might hang around at places where there is a lot
of crime, influence of drugs. When you are most likely to commit a crime, you are also more
likely to become a victim
Other main issues in criminological victimology
o Fear of crime
o Impact of victimization on criminal law
People think victims want higher punishment but that’s mostly not true!
o Repeat victimization
Once you have been victimized, you have a higher risk to become a victim again
o How do we know these things?
Answer: crime victim surveys
What is the main purpose of crime victim surveys?
Answer: measure the volume (prevalence and incidence) of crime, including the
“dark number”
Limitations of official statistics
o The dark number
Not all crimes are reported or detected by police
Not all reported crimes are duly recorded
Many crimes rely on victim reports
How many crimes remain hidden/how many victims of crime are there???
o Accuracy
Differences in/ changes in definitions
Depend on willingness/ ability to register
Can be manipulated by the police
o Difficulties for cross-country comparison and understanding trends
o Lack of variables for further study
All problems solved?
o Well no….
o Much depends on the questions asked
In 2010 the prevalence of sexual violence in Belgium was almost 6% (women) and 1%
(men)
In 2021 the prevalence of sexual violence in Belgium was 81% (women) and 47% (men)
In this questionnaire they asked ‘kissed against your will, undressed against your
will
Because if you just ask people ‘were you raped’ they think it’s something along the
lines of being ambushed by someone and they had sex with me
1.2 Criminological perspectives
Starting point for criminological perspectives on victimisation
o How much crime is there, and what role do victims play in crime?
o Largely relatively routine forms of crime
A key issue:
o Difficulties in defining criminal victimization (who gets to define it?)
,1.3 Social psychological perspectives
Classic experiments in social psychology
o Stanford prison experiment
Anyone can become violent against people if given an exact role
It’s about the social situation
o Robert Cave experiment
Based on the book Lord of the flies
Given circumstances and given roles people are more likely to do immoral behaviour
o Milgram experiment
The same with this experiment
If you are in a room with someone (smart) that tells you to do something, even if it’s hurting
someone, you will do it
o All these experiments are rooted in the Second World War
Really wanted to know why people do immoral things in these situations
How do social forces lead to people becoming a killer
Some specific relevant issues in social psychology
o Lerner and Simmons (1968): the belief in a just world
We believe in a just world and that leads people to thinking that victims deserve what they
get
o Thibaut and Walker (1975): the role of procedures in getting just outcomes
o Baumeister and colleagues (1990): the magnitude gap between “offenders and victims”
Perpetrators and victims see things differently
o Haslam (2006): Dehumanization
o Noor et al (2012): Competitive victimhood
Baumeister, Stillwell and Wortman (1990)
o Baumeister asked people to write a story they have been angry about (they are the victim in this one)
and one about how they made someone else angry (they are the offender in this one)
o They analysed the stories and saw some interesting things and so became the
moralization/magnitude gap
o The moralization gap
Differences in the moral tone:
Perpetrator sees justifications, victims see actions as wholly unjustified
Differences in impact
Perpetrator minimizes magnitude, sees impact as reparable, victim emphasizes
severity and irreparable nature of crime
Differences in the role of the context
Perpetrator attributes the event to context-factors, victim attributes the event to the
perpetrator
Differences in time frame
Perpetrator sees pre-cursors and aftermath limitied in time-frame, victims’ narrative
extends through time
When we talk about things we do wrong we talk in a different way then if u were the victim
Help us understand how revenge occurs
Differences in narratives form part of the explanation for cycles of revenge
Even when retaliation is exactly balanced, its story will not be
See also “The Myth of Pure Evil” viewing offenders through the “perpetrator’s
narrative”
, Starting point for social psychological perspectives on victimisation
o Processes of victimization are largely determined by social forces and social roles
o This also applies to our reactions to victimization
o The goal is to use capture the universal causal determinants of processes of perpetration and
victimization
A key issue:
o Experimental approaches have considerable methodological strengths, but also have their own
drawbacks
o Do these approaches pay too little attention to context, history and identity?
1.4 Justice perspectives
Key starting point:
o Adverserial versus inquisitorial systems: do you know the differences?
Adversarial systems
No role for “civil parties” in criminal trials
All the evidence in the court
Emphasis on hearing in court as the place for presenting evidence
No role for victims, further reduced by plea bargaining practices
Testifying in court as a source of “secondary” victimisation
inquisitorial systems ( bij ons)
Civil/ adhered parties/ auxiliary prosecutors
Pre-trail investigation by magistrate
Before court
Victims as civil parties
Testifying in re-trial investigation less burdensome than in court (?)
o In which systems do you think explicitly victim’s rights emerged?
Indeed, in adversarial systems:
Position of victims was the weakest there.
Need to maintain legitimacy of criminal justice process, and maintain victims’ cooperation
with criminal processes.
1950s until 1970s
o Initially activity in the Anglo-Saxon countries
Victims rights in the US
Victim support in the UK
Victim (state) compensation in New Zealand
o New-Zealand: evidence of the role of a particular campaigner: Marjory Fry
o Difference between US and UK remains until this day: important distinction between the priority for
services to victims and rights for victims
1970s onward global expansion
o International Symposia on Victimology since 1973.
o World Society of Victimology in 1979
o And following the example of the new emphasis on individual human rights approaches in the 1970s
o UN Declaration of Basic principles of Justice for victims of crime and abuse of power in 1985
Main victims rights
o To respect and recognition at all stages of the criminal proceedings;
o To receive information and information about the progress of the case;
o To provide information to officials responsible for decisions relating to the offender;
o To have legal advice available;
1.1 International legal perspective
The crime of genocide
o Could be the starting point of victimology (is not so on paper)
You have Hitler giving a speech about the Young Turks who tried ‘to do’ a genocide on the
Armenian people. He said “who remembers the Armenian?” Just like his idea with the Jews:
wipe them all out and forget about them (aka a genocide: killing people and their culture)
o Genocide convention
o 1948 : Lemkin
Whole family was murdered in the Second World War
Coined (invented) the word genocide
And made sure/was instrumental (active) to make sure that the UN would put together a
genocide convention
Assuring that genocide anywhere in the world (even if it’s ‘legal’) would be
punished
International crimes/ Crimes against humanity”
o 1947 : if this is a man
Primo Levi: If this is a man, aka Survival in Auschwitz
See also Jean Amery At the minds limits
Experiences with the Shoah as important victimological work
International legal perspectives on victimology international law progressed a little bit
o Truth commissions most well-known Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa
o International Criminal Tribunals of Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s
o Rome-statute 1998
o ! but most of this international victimology/criminology is very recent (after the millennium). Most
of the work mentioned above does not refer to victimology
Benjamin Mendelsohn
o Rumanian Lawyer
o Coined the word “victimology” in 1947
We say the starting point of victimology is in 1948 but he already mentioned it in a paper
related to the positions of victims in criminal law
Hans Von Hentig
o German criminal law professor who wrote the book ‘the criminal and his victim’
Wrote it in 1948 start of victimology as an academic discipline
o His inspiration was World War I and he wrote:
“why in history has everyone always focused on the guy with the big stick, the hero, the
activist, to the neglect of the poor slob who is at the end of the stick, the victim, the passivist
– or maybe, the poor slob (in bandages) isn’t all that much of a passivist victim – maybe he
asked for it?”
It raised the question whether the study of crime is not too one sided
It’s always about the perpetrator and neglected the role of the victim
But he did not talk much about the consequences of victimization like the
rest of the victimology after him
But more about the individual role that the victim plays in the development
of crime
It had a positive side: prevention of crime, more attention to the
victim’s power
But also a negative side: he does a bit of victim blaming
, Who is most likely to be a victim?
o Young Boy or Old Lady
The young boy because he is younger and might hang around at places where there is a lot
of crime, influence of drugs. When you are most likely to commit a crime, you are also more
likely to become a victim
Other main issues in criminological victimology
o Fear of crime
o Impact of victimization on criminal law
People think victims want higher punishment but that’s mostly not true!
o Repeat victimization
Once you have been victimized, you have a higher risk to become a victim again
o How do we know these things?
Answer: crime victim surveys
What is the main purpose of crime victim surveys?
Answer: measure the volume (prevalence and incidence) of crime, including the
“dark number”
Limitations of official statistics
o The dark number
Not all crimes are reported or detected by police
Not all reported crimes are duly recorded
Many crimes rely on victim reports
How many crimes remain hidden/how many victims of crime are there???
o Accuracy
Differences in/ changes in definitions
Depend on willingness/ ability to register
Can be manipulated by the police
o Difficulties for cross-country comparison and understanding trends
o Lack of variables for further study
All problems solved?
o Well no….
o Much depends on the questions asked
In 2010 the prevalence of sexual violence in Belgium was almost 6% (women) and 1%
(men)
In 2021 the prevalence of sexual violence in Belgium was 81% (women) and 47% (men)
In this questionnaire they asked ‘kissed against your will, undressed against your
will
Because if you just ask people ‘were you raped’ they think it’s something along the
lines of being ambushed by someone and they had sex with me
1.2 Criminological perspectives
Starting point for criminological perspectives on victimisation
o How much crime is there, and what role do victims play in crime?
o Largely relatively routine forms of crime
A key issue:
o Difficulties in defining criminal victimization (who gets to define it?)
,1.3 Social psychological perspectives
Classic experiments in social psychology
o Stanford prison experiment
Anyone can become violent against people if given an exact role
It’s about the social situation
o Robert Cave experiment
Based on the book Lord of the flies
Given circumstances and given roles people are more likely to do immoral behaviour
o Milgram experiment
The same with this experiment
If you are in a room with someone (smart) that tells you to do something, even if it’s hurting
someone, you will do it
o All these experiments are rooted in the Second World War
Really wanted to know why people do immoral things in these situations
How do social forces lead to people becoming a killer
Some specific relevant issues in social psychology
o Lerner and Simmons (1968): the belief in a just world
We believe in a just world and that leads people to thinking that victims deserve what they
get
o Thibaut and Walker (1975): the role of procedures in getting just outcomes
o Baumeister and colleagues (1990): the magnitude gap between “offenders and victims”
Perpetrators and victims see things differently
o Haslam (2006): Dehumanization
o Noor et al (2012): Competitive victimhood
Baumeister, Stillwell and Wortman (1990)
o Baumeister asked people to write a story they have been angry about (they are the victim in this one)
and one about how they made someone else angry (they are the offender in this one)
o They analysed the stories and saw some interesting things and so became the
moralization/magnitude gap
o The moralization gap
Differences in the moral tone:
Perpetrator sees justifications, victims see actions as wholly unjustified
Differences in impact
Perpetrator minimizes magnitude, sees impact as reparable, victim emphasizes
severity and irreparable nature of crime
Differences in the role of the context
Perpetrator attributes the event to context-factors, victim attributes the event to the
perpetrator
Differences in time frame
Perpetrator sees pre-cursors and aftermath limitied in time-frame, victims’ narrative
extends through time
When we talk about things we do wrong we talk in a different way then if u were the victim
Help us understand how revenge occurs
Differences in narratives form part of the explanation for cycles of revenge
Even when retaliation is exactly balanced, its story will not be
See also “The Myth of Pure Evil” viewing offenders through the “perpetrator’s
narrative”
, Starting point for social psychological perspectives on victimisation
o Processes of victimization are largely determined by social forces and social roles
o This also applies to our reactions to victimization
o The goal is to use capture the universal causal determinants of processes of perpetration and
victimization
A key issue:
o Experimental approaches have considerable methodological strengths, but also have their own
drawbacks
o Do these approaches pay too little attention to context, history and identity?
1.4 Justice perspectives
Key starting point:
o Adverserial versus inquisitorial systems: do you know the differences?
Adversarial systems
No role for “civil parties” in criminal trials
All the evidence in the court
Emphasis on hearing in court as the place for presenting evidence
No role for victims, further reduced by plea bargaining practices
Testifying in court as a source of “secondary” victimisation
inquisitorial systems ( bij ons)
Civil/ adhered parties/ auxiliary prosecutors
Pre-trail investigation by magistrate
Before court
Victims as civil parties
Testifying in re-trial investigation less burdensome than in court (?)
o In which systems do you think explicitly victim’s rights emerged?
Indeed, in adversarial systems:
Position of victims was the weakest there.
Need to maintain legitimacy of criminal justice process, and maintain victims’ cooperation
with criminal processes.
1950s until 1970s
o Initially activity in the Anglo-Saxon countries
Victims rights in the US
Victim support in the UK
Victim (state) compensation in New Zealand
o New-Zealand: evidence of the role of a particular campaigner: Marjory Fry
o Difference between US and UK remains until this day: important distinction between the priority for
services to victims and rights for victims
1970s onward global expansion
o International Symposia on Victimology since 1973.
o World Society of Victimology in 1979
o And following the example of the new emphasis on individual human rights approaches in the 1970s
o UN Declaration of Basic principles of Justice for victims of crime and abuse of power in 1985
Main victims rights
o To respect and recognition at all stages of the criminal proceedings;
o To receive information and information about the progress of the case;
o To provide information to officials responsible for decisions relating to the offender;
o To have legal advice available;
