Criminal VIII

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

CRIMINAL LAW HONOURS ON

“The Penal Couple : Victimology Approach”

SUBMITTED TO Ms. Sonal Dass

SHIVENDRA KUMAR TEKAM SEC-B Roll-142

THE PENAL C OUPLE : VICTIMOLOGY A PPROACH

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

At the outset, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and thank my teacher, Ms. Sonal Dass for putting his trust in me and giving me a project topic such as this and for having the faith in me to deliver. Mam, thank you for an opportunity to help me grow. My gratitude also goes out to the staff and administration of HNLU for the infrastructure in the form of our library, IT Lab and my friends that was a source of great help for the completion of this project.

SHIVENDRA KUMAR TEKAM

2|Page


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

At the outset, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and thank my teacher, Ms. Sonal Dass for putting his trust in me and giving me a project topic such as this and for having the faith in me to deliver. Mam, thank you for an opportunity to help me grow. My gratitude also goes out to the staff and administration of HNLU for the infrastructure in the form of our library, IT Lab and my friends that was a source of great help for the completion of this project.

SHIVENDRA KUMAR TEKAM

2|Page


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction......................... Introduction................................................. ............................................... .............................................. ..........................................3 ...................3 2. Objectives.................................. Objectives......................................................... ............................................... ............................................... .....................................4 ..............4 3. Research Methodology....................... Methodology.............................................. ............................................... ............................................... ...........................4 ....4 4. Chapterisation I. Rise of Victimology........................... Victimology.................................................. ...........................................10 ....................10 II. Victim of Crime................................. Crime........................................................ ...........................................11 ....................11 III. Consequences Consequences of Crimes............................... Crimes....................................................... ...............................13 .......13 IV. The Penal Couple............................ Couple................................................... .............................................15 ......................15 V. Victim and Offender Dyad.................................... Dyad..........................................................1 ......................18 8 VI. Theories.................................. Theories.......................................................... ............................................... ................................. .......... 21 VII. Victim and Offender................................. Offender........................................................ ....................................26 .............26 VIII. Critiques of Penal Couple Theory................................... Theory.............................................. ........... 28 5. Conclusion............................. Conclusion.................................................... .............................................. .............................................. ........................................31 .................31

Biblography............................ Biblography................................................... .............................................. .............................................. ............................................... .......................... .. 32

3|Page


INTRODUCTION

Victimology is considered to be a sub-discipline of criminology which includes three different groups of people and their respective interests. This area has been the subject matter of frequent debates and analyses which have brought together the intellectuals, the activists of many non-governmental organizations as well as the law-making authorities, yielding a lot of tension in this "boiling pot" of diverse interests. 1 Some authors have noted that victimology is "a specific and respectable academic and scientific discipline, a new branch in the scientific study of the victim, which is distinguished by its transparent and peculiar spectrum as well as by a comprehensive and interdisciplinary research methodology. 2 In simple terms, as Šeparović states, "victimology is, simply, the scientific knowledge of the victim".3 Yet, regardless of its principal objective to study the personality of the victim and its conduct in the victim-offender interaction in the mechanism of becoming a victim (victimization),4 i.e. irrespective of the phenomenological and etiological characteristics of an individual victim's personality and the process of its victimization, it is also necessary to study the collective and abstract victims, including the collective) victims ensuing from the violation of the norms of the International Humanitarian Law or the victims of certain deviant forms of behaviour, such as prostitution or drug abuse. The old paradigm (primarily addressing the victim's rights) can be observed as an expression of pure morality in relation to the victim, whereas the new paradigm (addressing the victim's needs) demonstrates consideration and care for morality. The new paradigm involves not only the protection of the victim's rights and interests but also the provisions to meet the victim's needs. The current victimological theory articulates this new paradigm both in terms of immediate action and in terms of academic and scientific field of interest. The main action is aimed at changing the perception of victimization, shifting it from the individual to the institutional level and creating a different cultural and social definition of crime.

1

Sandra Walklate, Imagining the Victim of Crime, McGrawHill, Open University Press 2007, pages 29-30. Alija Ramljak, Miodrag Simović, Viktimologija, Paneuropean University Apeiron, Faculty of Law in Banja Luka, Banja Luka 2006, page 3. 3 Zvonimir Šeparovic, Viktimologija – studije o žrtvama, Informator, Zagreb 1998, page 5. 2

4|Page


Some more recent victimological papers clearly point out that "it may be deceiving to think that the demeanour of corporations is irrelevant, even taking into account the narrow definition of crime. In many ways, misdemeanour of corporations may include much more deliberation than most of the perpetrated criminal acts known as the street crime, which are commonly regarded as the acts of criminal conduct or victimization". 4 "Victimology has too many pros to allow any kind of coherence in its own conception of the world",5 while Rock notices its "Catholic" nature. 6 Indicating to even broader concepts within this discipline, a Canadian victimologist Fattah insists on making a clear distinction between what he calls "the humanistic victimology" and "the scientific victimology". In fact, by making this distinction, Fattah puts forward the standpoints stemming from the comparative analysis of the alleged victimization cases, where these contentions were made either by the proponents of the victim protection movements or by those scholars whose views on victimization could be described as impartial but primarily academic and scientific in nature. The need for such a distinction comes from the time when Fattah's writing was "highly appropriate" in terms of articulating strong and convincing conservative undertones which were combined with the ideas born in the North American victim's protection movement and its ability to draw attention of the state authorities. Yet, this potpourri of activism and political influence in favour of "hearing the voice of the victims" also developed in the powerful Western European countries, such as England and Wales, in spite of a relatively neutral position of the victim's support movement in these countries. 7 Until the early 1990s, along with the growing number and the variety of groups and individuals that advocated the victims' rights in those countries, there was a process of a growing concentration of victims' political interests. 8 Consequently, in the course of its development, victimology has branched into a number of different directions, whose contents and time spans varied depending on the approach of the victimologists who been advocating them. 9

4

Ellias Robert, "Paradigms and Paradoxes of Victimology" http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/27/elias.pdf, 5 Sandra Walklate, loc. cit. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Konstantinović-Vilić, S., Nikolić-Ristanović, V., Kostić, M., op.cit., page 461. 5|Page


REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Ellias

Robert,

"Paradigms

and

Paradoxes

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/27/elias.pdf ,

of

discussed

Victimology" demeanour

of

corporations is relevant. Sandra Walklate, Imagining the Victim of Crime, McGrawHill, Open University Press 2007, pages 29-30. discussed victimology and its meaning.

6|Page


OBJECTIVES

I. II.

Examine Victimology and Rise of Victimology Examine Relationship of Victim and the Offender

7|Page


HYPOTHESIS

The Penal Couple theory (The victim- criminal relationship) is to some variable extent victims of criminal act may directly share in responsibility for the victimization.

8|Page


RESEARCH QUESTIONS

I. II.

What is Victimology? Discuss Rise of Victimology in present time Who is Victim of Crime? Explain Penal Couple theory

9|Page


RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The method of research adopted for the project is analytical methodology. For the present project relevant data and information has been received and collected from secondary sources and there has been use of authentic books and websites which provided reliable information and data.

10 | P a g e


Rise of Victimology

The end of the Second World War i.e. the late 40s saw the advent of the study of victimology. Benjamin Mendelsohn, a Romanian attorney or Hans Von Hentig who fled to America from Germany during 1940, are said to be the founding fathers of the study of victimology. Both these writers were lawyers and criminologists and as such were very much concerned with the understanding of the victim-victimizer dyad. The need to understand the situation and dynamics that lead one to become offended and other an offender encouraged them to form victim typologies. None of the writers suggested that there could be born victims, but never the less they looked out and searched for ways to differentiate the potential victim from the non-victim the differentiation was a novel field from the earlier concerns of criminology. The two writers explored the familial and natural origin of victimhood, victims, characteristics, their relationship with the perpetrators, and offer a victim typology. Hans Von Hentig’s typology is based in 'victim-proneness' and Mendelsohn categorized capability The psychology of victims and the dynamics and victimhood that have been earlier ignored due to this new approach lead to the tendency to blame the victim. Victim Blame school has a huge impact on all major writers, criminologists, scholars, lawyers and psychiatrists though in proper etymological term ‘victimogy’ means the study of victims but the general trend has been to blame the victim in the past few years. Exploring the psyche of victims has become synonymous with the blaming of the victim and role of the victim in violent systems. Hans Von Henting has said “Possession of money has certainly to do with robbery and prettiness of youth are contributing factors in criminal assaults….. if there are born criminals it is evident that there are born victims. Self-harming and self-destroying through the medium of a pliable outsider.”

Von Henting also developed victim typologies. One set was for “Four perfect murder victims” : The depressive , the greedy for gain, the wanton, and tormentor. The depressive was described as a perfect murder victim because his depressed state made him someone who “Lacks ordinary prudence and discretion.” Later these original four victim categories were expanded to thirteen. Among these new “Perfect victims” were the young, the old, females, 11 | P a g e


immigrants, normal people who are dull, the acquisitive, fighters and the lonely and the heartbroken in the classic book on victimology, The Criminal and His victim , the influential concept of the ‘duet frame of crime” the criminal and his victim was introduced. Given the encompassing the, therefore, vague nature of “perfect victim” almost any person could be part of this duet. Thinking about ways of differentiating victims from nonvictims in this way reflects an underpinning worldview that there is a normal person when measured against whom the victim somehow falls short. The concept of victim precipitation is particularly revealing in understanding victimology and its development. Volenti non fit injuria- no one can complain of injury to which he has submitted willingly. In many other instances, consent changes the legal aspect while the factual situation remains unaltered. By his or her decision the victim can, in spite of loss and pain endured, turn factual crime into a situation devoid of legal significance. Noncomplaint after the event practically stands on a par with consent. The doer sufferer relation is put by our codes in mechanical terms. A purse is snatched bodily harm is done. The sexual self-determination of a woman is violated. Mental factors are, of course, taken into account. So is felonious intent or malice aforethought. The “consent” of an adult woman changes the otherwise criminal act of rape into a lawful occurrence or, at least, happening in which the law is not very much interested. When the victim's consent or decide not to complain, to bear the loss and pain he loses his legal rights though the facts remain the same. The decision whether due to coercion or not affects the legal situation as such making him a contributor in the crime. In a sense the victim shapes and mould the criminal although the final outcome may appear to do one side, the victim and criminal profoundly work upon each other, right up until the last moment in the drama. Ultimately the victim can assume the role of a determinant in the event. These investigation attempted to describe the complex relationship between the diverse and complimentary roles of perpetrators and victims in general and men and women in particular in the dynamics of violence, assuming the victims have complementary needs to be in a relationship with victimizers. Over the years, this relationship has been mentioned as 'Penal couple', 'duet frame of crime' and 'victim precipitation criminal homicide.’ Thus, the beginning of ‘victimology’ was with narrower goals : the contribution of the victim to a criminal act and was given a broader and more meaningful perspective in late 1970’s when this victim blame climate gave way to the debate of nature vs. nurture and destiny vs. choice. 12 | P a g e


Victim of Crime

The concept of a “victim” can be traced back to ancient societies. It was connected to the notion of sacrifice. In the original meaning of the term, a victim was a person or an animal put to death during a religious ceremony in order to appease some supernatural power or deity. Over the centuries, the word has picked up additional meanings. Now it commonly refers to individuals who suffer injuries, losses, or hardships for any reason. People can become victims of accidents, natural disasters, diseases, or social problems such as warfare, discrimination, political witch hunts, and other injustices. Crime victims are harmed by illegal acts. In criminology and criminal law, a victim of a crime is an identifiable person who has been harmed individually and directly by the perpetrator, rather than by society as a whole. However, this may not always be the case, as with victims of white collar crime, who may not be clearly identifiable or directly linked to crime against a particular individual. Victims of white collar crime are often denied their status as victims by the social construction of the concept (Croall, 2001). Not all criminologists accept the concept of victimization or victimology. The concept also remains a controversial topic within women's studies. A victim impact panel is a form of community-based or restorative justice in which the crime victims (or relatives and friends of deceased crime victims) meet with the defendant after conviction to tell the convict about how the criminal activity affected them, in the hope of rehabilitation or deterrence.

13 | P a g e


Consequences of Crimes

The trauma of victimization is a direct reaction to the aftermath of crime. Crime victims suffer a tremendous amount of physical and psychological trauma. The primary injuries victims suffer can be grouped into three distinct categories: physical, financial and emotional. When victims do not receive the appropriate support and intervention in the aftermath of the crime, they suffer "secondary" injuries. The physical injury suffered by victims may be as apparent as cuts, bruises, or broken arms and legs. However, it is not uncommon for victims to be fatigued, unable to sleep, or have increased or decreased appetites. Many victims believe that the stress caused by victimization endangers them to physical problems later in life. The Financial Injury is suffered by the victims and survivors when their money or jewelry is taken, when their property is damaged, when their medical insurances does not cover all expenses, and when they must pay funeral costs. The primary emotional injuries of victimization cause both immediate and long-term reactions to victims, their loved ones and, sometimes, their friends. Emotional distress as the result of crime is a recurring theme for all victims of crime. The most common problem, affecting three quarters of victims, were psychological problems, including: fear, anxiety, nervousness, self-blame, anger, shame, and difficulty sleeping. These problems often result in the development of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Post crime distress is also linked to pre-existing emotional problems and socio-demographic variables. This has been known to become a leading case of the elderly to be more adversely affected.(Ferraro, 1995) Victims may experience the following psychological reactions: •

Increase in the belief of personal vulnerability.

•

The perception of the world as meaningless and incomprehensible.

•

The view of themselves in a negative light.

•

The experience of victimization may result in an increasing fear of the victim of the

crime, and the spread of fear in the community. 14 | P a g e


Dr. Morton Bard, co-author of The Crime Victim's Book, has described a victim's reaction to crime as the crisis reaction. Victims will react differently depending upon the level of personal violation they experience and their state of equilibrium at the time of victimization. Victims of non-violent crimes such as theft may experience less of a personal violation than victims of violent crimes, however, that is not always the case. Homicide is the ultimate violation for a crime victim, and leaves behind the victim's survivors to experience the personal violation. All people have their own "normal" state of equilibrium. This normal state is influenced by everyday stressors such as illness, moving, changes in employment, and family issues. When any one of these changes occur, equilibrium will be altered, but should eventually return to normal. When people experience common stressors and are then victimized, they are susceptible to more extreme crisis reactions. There are certain common underlying reactions that a victim will undergo either in the immediate hours or days after the crime. Frequent responses to a criminal victimization include, but are not limited to: shock; numbness; denial; disbelief; anger; and, finally, recovery.

15 | P a g e


The Penal Couple

The penal couple is defined as the relationship between perpetrator and victim of a crime. That is, both are involved in the event. A sociologist invented the term in 1963. The term is now accepted by many sociologists. The concept is, essentially, that "when a crime takes place, it has two partners, one the offender and second the victim, who is providing opportunity to the criminal in committing the crime." The victim, in this view, is "a participant in the penal couple and should bear some 'functional responsibility' for the crime."The very idea is rejected by some other victimologists as blaming the victim. The victimology as a discipline began with the publication of Hans von Hentig’s The Criminal and His Victim in 1948. He made a remarkable contribution to criminology by emphasizing and demonstrating the importance of the victim in the ‘doer-sufferer entanglement’ (von Hentig, 1948, 1967: 448) – what Mendelsohn (1956: 99) later called the ‘penal couple’ of the victim and the offender. He asserted that studying offenders without taking any interest in victims is futile, leading to incomplete understanding or to incorrect conclusions. While criminologists have not fully taken this insight on, it has become increasingly difficult to ignore. Indeed, the overlaps between the two groups and the extent to which offending can be better understood when one understands the offender’s prior experiences of victimization have informed much recent victimological research and writing (Boswell, 2000; Rumgay, 2004) and patterns of victim behaviour have been studied by criminologists interested in repeat victimization (Gill and Pease, 1998; Titus and Gover, 2001). These issues were raised in The Criminal and His Victim (see for example the discussion of John Dillinger’s early history). Many writers have argued that von Hentig’s work laid down the basis for a pernicious tendency which has become known as ‘victim blaming’: by studying the connections between offending and victimization (rather than, for example, the social causes of victimization) he individualized the issue and made it easier for criminal justice professionals, the media and people in general to blame victims for their plight (Walklate, 1989).

16 | P a g e


The argument that ‘the collusion between perpetrator and victim is a fundamental fact of criminology’ is made with great brio. Because von Hentig’s study was the first, others emulated it. On its own, it might not have had much influence, but it represented the beginning of an academic tradition which has helped to justify some of the political and judicial manifestations of victim blaming. The judge who introduced the notion of ‘contributory negligence’ may not even have been aware of von Hentig’s concept of the ‘wanton victim’ but he was nevertheless probably influenced by it (Walklate, 1989). Younger people, males and single people had consistently higher rates of victimization than older people, females and those who were married. They reasoned that this must have to do with victims’ lifestyles, and that there was likely to be a correlation between victims’ age, gender and marital status and ‘being in places and situations with high opportunities for criminal victimization’. In addition, certain conditions such as the proximity of offender and victim and an offender sufficiently motivated to commit an offence are required. The likelihood of these coinciding, they hypothesize, is related to lifestyles.

17 | P a g e


Victim and Offender Dyad

From historical times it is assumed that the actions of victims were irrelevant is understanding the how’s & why’s of crime occurrence. The focus was entirely on offender while ignoring, dismissing or understanding the role of victim. But in the due time more so after the have or second world war the society and the world at large saw the other half of criminal dyad : Victim and his version of the crime. The relationship between victim and the criminal was seen in a new light as to discover the reason behind the why / how of criminals choice of victim. The relationship between the victim and offender is much more intricate than the rough distinctions of criminal law. The central thrust of the study of victim- criminal relationship is that to some variable extent of the officially labelled victims of criminal act may directly share in responsibility for the victimization. There are different stages of victim offender relationship : A.

The victim has no prior knowledge of the crime. He dislikes very much being made a

victim. He inquires the policy about the victimization. B.

The victim has no prior knowledge of the crimes and he disapproves being made a

victim, but refrains from calling the police. C.

The victim has some prior awareness of the possible crime.

The first of these might be called victim non acceptance. The second and third might be termed as victim acquiescence, unwilling with of without previous knowledge. According to Mack 10 These three develop out of number of social situation of which the major ones are : (a) The victim himself is a criminal .

10

Mack, Jack : A : A victim role typology of Rational Economics Property Crimes Victimology A New Focus, (1974) Drapkin & Viano (Eds) Lexington Books Massachusetts p. 127 18 | P a g e


(b) The victim is a near criminal. (c) The victim has no open criminal associations. (d) The victim belongs to an ethnic minority group. There is much to be learned about victimization patterns and the factors that influence them. Associated with the questions (of considerable importance) of victims precipitation , since crime is an interactional process (Personage 1979, p. 10). Therefore, the performance of the victimizer should be seen as a shared responsibility. From the point of view, who may take on the role of victim or victimizer in particular situations may have more to do with sheer chance than with anything else. Victimization is a problem of relationship and responsibility. Who is responsible for what and to what extent? The victimizer and the victim act on each other directly by sharing a common place, or indirectly by symbolic, relationship Hence the victim can be viewed as a dependant variable by examining the conditions which predispose certain kinds of persons to victimization. The distinction between criminal and victim which used to be considered as clear cut as the black and white, can become vague and blurred in individual cases. The longer and more deeply the actions of the person involved are scrutinized the more difficult it occasionally will be to decide who is to blame for tragic outcome (Mannhem, 1965, p. 672). When a crime takes place it has two partners, one the offender and second the victim who is providing the opportunity to the criminal in committing the crime. The first few pioneers of victimology coined the expressions like 'duet frame of reference' (Hans Von Henting, 1941) and the 'penal couple' (Mendelsohn, 1956), the 'doer suffers relationship' (Ellenberger, 1955). Thus, came the concept of 'Shared responsibility’ Reconstructing the situation proceeding the incident can provide a more balanced and complete picture of what happened. Who did what to whom and why, and thereby represent an improvement over earlier one sided, static perpetrator centered accounts (Fattah, 1979). Scholars have begun to see the victim not just as a passive object, as the innocent point of impact of crime on society, but as sometimes playing an active role and possibly contributing to some degree to his own victimization. During the last thirty years, there has been considerable debate, speculation and research into the victim's role the criminal - victim 19 | P a g e


relationship, the concept of responsibility and behaviour that could be considered provocative. Thus, the study of crime has taken a more realistic and more complete outlook.

20 | P a g e


Theories

Usually, a theory is a statement that explains a given phenomena based on causal relationships. In this case, what is needed is a statement that explains how and why victimizations occur.

Beniamin Mendelsohn

The first person to begin the development of theoretical writings about victimology was the Romanian defence attorney Beniamin Mendelsohn, who needed to understand victims to improve his ability to defend offenders. To do this, in 1956 he created a short taxonomy of six categories that centered on the relative guilt of victims. These categories were designed to facilitate the degree to which a victim shared the responsibility for a crime with the offender; however, they do not explain the causes of victimization. Mendelsohn was intrigued with the relationship between the offender and the victim. He referred to this relationship phenomenon as the penal couple.

1. The completely innocent victim. 2. The victim with minor guilt. 3. The victim who is as guilty as the offender. 4. The victim who is more guilty than the offender. 5. The most guilty victim. 6. The imaginary victim.

21 | P a g e


Hans von Hentig

With the publication of his book, The Criminal and His Victim, von Hentig created a taxonomy that described how victims were responsible for their harms. His schema was based on psychological, social and biological factors. He was also interested in relationship between offender and victim, in what he called the criminal-victim dyad. In 1948, he developed three broad categorizations of victims.

1. General: age, gender, vulnerabilities. 2. Psychological: depressed, acquisitive, loneliness. 3. Activating: victim turned offender.

Ultimately, Von Hentig, expanded his categories to 13: 1. The Young 2. The Female 3. The Old 4. The Mentally Defective and Deranged 5. The Immigrants 6. The Minorities 7. The Dull Normals 8. The Depressed 9. The Acquisitive 10. Wanton 22 | P a g e


11. The Lonesome and the Heartbroken 12. The Tormentor 13. The Blocked, Exempted, or Fighting

Stephen Schafer

Extending the work of von Hentig, Stephen Schafer used an ironic change of titles with his book, The Victim and His Criminal. He was also focused on the offender victim interaction and developed a taxonomy based on the victim’s functional responsibility for the crime: 1. Unrelated Victims (no victim responsibility) 2. Provocative Victims (victim shares responsibility) 3. Precipitative Victims (some degree of victim responsibility) 4. Biologically Weak Victims (no victim responsibility) 5. Socially Weak Victims (no victim responsibility) 6. Self-Victimizing (total victim responsibility) 7. Political Victim (no victim responsibility) These three pioneer victimologists, strangely enough, were not focused on the injury caused to the victim by the offender. Their main concern was with the victim’s role in contributing to the crime and in the co-operation of the victim with the criminal justice system. Mendelsohn, in 1976, proposed a different view of victims with his concept of general victimology which considered the source of the victimization. Based on this notion, he listed five types of victimizers: 1. A criminal 2. One’s self 23 | P a g e


3. The social environment 4. Technology 5. The natural environment 6. Most crime victimologists are also criminologists.

Dietrich L. Smith and Kurt Weis

In 1976, Dietrich L. Smith and Kurt Weis created a rudimentary model of the General Victimology perspective which considered the university of situations, events and processes that likely lead to victimization. 1. The study of the creation of definitions of victims by legal processes, everyday processes and scientific processes. 2. The study of applications of the above definitions by control agents, significant others, community, behavioural and social scientists, and the victim him or herself. 3. The study of societal response systems with victims such as crisis intervention, social services, police, prevention, medical services and civil courts. 4. The study of the victim’s reaction in the post-victimization behaviour such as seeking help, complaints, and reactions to the response of others. 5.

John Dussich

The most recent attempt to create a unified comprehensive theory of victimization within the scope of general victimology was created by John Dussich in 1985 with the presentation of his Social Copy Theory. In 2004, It has been revised to the Psycho Social Coping Theory. The essential ingredients of this model are to consider the existence of personal resources in the victim’s environment that exist at the time of the victimization. Persons who have an adequate number or type of resources are able to thwart their victimization; if the 24 | P a g e


victimization is not thwarted, the injury can be diminished, and the victim is able to recover sooner. Those with fewer personal resources in their environment will be more vulnerable to victimization, greater injury, and less recovery. The unique aspect of this theory is that it serves to both explain victimizations for all sources and it is useful to assist victims in their recovery process.

25 | P a g e


Critiques of Penal Couple Theory

The very idea is rejected by some other victimologists as blaming the victim. Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act are held entirely or partially responsible for the harm that befell them. People familiar with victimology are much less likely to see the victim as responsible. For example, there is a greater tendency to blame victims of rape than victims of robbery in cases where victims and perpetrators know one another. Indeed, we find that the victim is accorded significant levels of attribution in their maltreatment and that gender appreciably impacts this perception. Specifically, we find that male victims are attributed the highest levels of blame for the crime committed against them, while women are attributed equal or greater positions on the question of having no responsibility for the crime or having some responsibility for the crime. For Example : In 2005, Australian Muslim preacher Feiz Mohammad gave a speech in Australia that was covered in Europe and the U.S. in which he blamed women themselves for being rape victims. He said: "A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world. Why? No one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world... Strapless, backless, sleeveless, showing their legs, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent blouses, miniskirts, tight jeans: all this to tease man and appeal to his carnal nature. Also, In a case that attracted worldwide coverage, when a woman was raped and killed in India in December 2012, some Indian government officials and political leaders blamed the victim for her outfit and being out late at night. Theoretically, this may be explained within a framework of “A Just World” (Lerner, 1980; Anderson, 2004). In this orientation, negative victim perception is seen to occur when an observer overcompensates for a need to place an unfair act in a context that makes sense to them. As Anderson (2004:2) writes: One has a motivational need to believe that the world is just and fair place and that behavioral outcomes are deserved (“people get what they deserve and deserve what they get”), thus maintaining a sense of control and efficacy over the environment. To believe that 26 | P a g e


unfortunate things happen to people without any apparent reason would prove chaotic and would subsequently threaten one’s sense of self-control.

Thus, to blame the victim is to create a sense of order and a belief that the world is understandable and actions happen for a reason. Such beliefs however, especially for justice professionals, truly deserve identification and discussion. For example, how much force to use in restraining a suspect, or how one might treat a drug dealer who was shot versus a child who was gunned down leaves room for the possibility of unequal treatment based on the responsibility assigned to those associated with the crime? Second, we find that gender does influence reactions to victims. The literature has historically named gender a major factor in victim blaming (Howard, 1983; Anderson and Swainson, 2001; Anderson, 2004). In fact, victimization has typically been perceived as a feminine experience. This is to say that women are more likely to be thought of as potential victims and thus more likely to be seen as the cause of their victimization. In this study, female victim attribution does occur. Indeed, we find that women are attributed greater or equal positions on responsibility for the crime committed against them versus no responsibility for the crime. We believe that traditional female sex and gender role stereotyping along with perceptions of “a just world” often make this so. One finding that is inconsistent with the literature is this study’s suggestion that men are more likely to be blamed for the crime committed against them. We suppose this is due to participants perceiving (through gendered norms) woman as incapable of defending themselves, whereas, men on the other hand ”should” be able to resist the attack and are thus more responsible for the crime committed against them. While women are generally blamed for characteristics that conform to the female stereotype, e.g., trust, passivity, carelessness (Howard, 1984), this study argues that men are blamed for behaviors that contradict the male stereotype, e.g., failure to fight back, show of fear and shame (Pollack, 1998). Put another way, when victimized, females are blamed for living up to traditional female gender stereotypes while men are blamed for not living up to their traditional gendered norms. In the end we hold that victim blaming, both male and female, derive primarily from gender stereotypes.

27 | P a g e


Furthermore we believe that victim services and criminal justice professionals would benefit from a broader discussion of the relationship between blaming and gender identification. At the very least, practitioners should be aware of the effects of perception on their overall service actions and their reactions to victims.

28 | P a g e


CONCLUSION

The use of such expressions as "the victim-offender problem" (Mac- Donald 1939), "the duet frame of crime" (Von Hentig 1948), "the penal couple" (Ellenberger 1955), and, more generally, "the victim-offender relationship" (Von Hentig 1940; Schafer 1968; Schultz 1968) clearly indicates the significance of crime victims to the understanding of crime. Garofalo (1914) was one of the first to note that a victim may provoke another into attack, whereas Mendelsohn (1956) developed a victim typology that distinguishes victims who are more culpable than their offenders from those who are considered totally guiltless. Von Hentig (1948) described general classes of crime victims (e.g., the young, females, the old, the mentally defective, the depressed, the acquisitive, the lonesome and heartbroken) and some of the characteristics associated with these personal attributes that increase their vulnerability to crime. Such a list of phrases is not a history, and it would be incorrect to claim that modern victim theories are merely the latest variants in a long lineage of earlier victim theories. These early writers did not propose theories, and even some of the concepts they used were primitive. Furthermore, it is speculative at best to attempt to sketch a victim theory ancestry since there seem to be few connections among these early works. Although it is difficult to trace the origins of any particular theoretical perspective.

29 | P a g e


BIBLIOGRAPHY

JOURNALS & BOOKS WEBSITES 

ELLIAS R OBERT, "PARADIGMS AND PARADOXES OF VICTIMOLOGY"



SANDRA WALKLATE, IMAGINING

THE

VICTIM

OF

CRIME, MCGRAWHILL, OPEN

U NIVERSITY PRESS 2007 

MACK , JACK : A : A VICTIM

ROLE TYPOLOGY OF

R ATIONAL ECONOMICS PROPERTY

CRIMES VICTIMOLOGY A NEW FOCUS, (1974) 

DHAMMIKA DHARAMAPALA, NUNO GAROUPA, AND R ICHARD H. MCADAMS, BELIEF IN A JUST WORLD, BLAMING THE VICTIM AND HATE CRIME STATUES , 2008



COLIN LOFTIN, K AREN K INDLEY, SANDRA L. NORRIS, BRIAN WIERSEMAA N ATTRIBUTE APPROACH

TO

R ELATIONSHIPS

BETWEEN

OFFENDERS

AND

VICTIMS

IN

HOMICIDE, 1987 

WILLIAMS, BRIAN K., CHONG, HANNAH GOODMAN, THE

DEVELOPMENT OF THE

DISCIPLINE: I NTRODUCTION, 2009 

A NDREW K ARMEN, CRIME VICTIMS I NTRODUCTION TO VICTIMOLOGY, 1984



SELF-BLAME

AND

BLAME

OF

R APE VICTIMS, NANCY E. S NOW, PUBLIC AFFAIRS

QUARTERLY, VOL. 8, NO. 4 (OCT., 1994)

WEBSITES 

THE TRAUMA

OF

VICTIMIZATION,

HTTP://WWW.VICTIMSOFCRIME. ORG/HELP-

FOR -CRIME-VICTIMS/GET-HELP-BULLETINS-FOR -CRIME-VICTIMS/TRAUMA-OFVICTIMIZATION, ACCESSED ON APRIL 3, 2016. 

PENAL

COUPLE,

HTTP://WWW.GUTENBERG.US/ARTICLES/PENAL _ COUPLE#CITE _ NOTE-3, ACCESSED ON APRIL 3, 2016.

30 | P a g e

Criminal VIII

Recommend Documents