Crime Victims

CRIME VICTIMS

Crime Victims: An Introduction

The particular problems faced by persons who experience hare crime are broadly characterized by the trauma and fear they go through resulting from the crime (Reilich & Chermak, n.a.). The fear of visiting outside places might increase within the victim’s and his family’s minds and he might be constrained to his home.

The seriousness of cyberstalking could be estimated from the physical and mental effects it leaves on the victims. These could be seen in the form of upset stomach, trouble in sleeping, anger, fear, confusion, distress, and stress, etc. (Begotti & Maran, 2019).

Law-abiding citizens should be concerned about inmate-on-inmate violence since the criminals in jail would eventually release from imprisonment. For a safe and better future of the society, it is necessary to have positive effects on the imprisoned person for having improved social and fiscal consequences (Zoukis, 2014).

One side of the debate for the victims to be armed says that there is a possibility that the victims are in a better and equal position to defend themselves and reduce the overall violence rate of a country (Wellford, Pepper & Petrie, 2005, p. 114). On the contrary, the firearm demand would increase, posing increased costs on a country’s economy and higher risks of injury.

The difference between using force and unleashing retaliatory violence is that force could be used for protection against a crime while retaliatory violence happens when someone has done wrong to another person and the victim feels that he should take justice into his own hands and stands up for revenge with the same force (Insight Conflict Resolution, n.a.). For instance, using force is when someone tries to snatch a woman’s handbag on the road and the woman tries to pull away from her bag with all her might. Retaliatory violence is when someone in the office gave a blow to the other colleague’s face and he decides to give him the dame forceful punch back onto his offender’s face.

Restorative justice is based on intervention, compensation, and settlement while retributive justice is based on the conviction and penalty (Karmen, 2015, p. 489). Restorative justice believes that positive improvement should be instilled within the society, the harm should be repaired and the person should be transformed (Center for Justice and Reconciliation, n.a.), while retributive justice emphasizes suffering in return for the person who has inflicted harm.

The potential benefits of participating in a victim-offender reconciliation program are that the victim is involved in the mediation process where correction measures are also defined by the victim (Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2019). Personal accountability is involved and the defendant gets a chance to improve. The drawbacks might involve the potential unwillingness of the offender to accept reconciliation and become more harmful for the victim (VC Archives, 2000). Insecurity may rise for the victim, proving harmful for himself and his family.

The viewpoints of maximalists and minimalists are far apart as they are only considered ideologies. The maximalists overlooked the seriousness of the problem and suffering went wider in scope without getting full attention. The growing crisis was not addressed. However, the minimalists believed that missing children were briefly lost and attention was not ensured.

The views of maximalists and minimalists are different on the problem of neglect and abuse of children since there was no real data. There was scattered data as the cases reported to the police were not registered. Calculating the severity of the issue was difficult as under-reporting, especially in child sexual abuse, was a norm. Professionals, teachers, and even counselors did not come up with reporting as there was a lack of resources (Karmen, 2015, p. 265).

The victimologists should adopt a free of bias approach and be objective since there are some complicated situations where there might be reasonable doubts and disagreements over the conflicting party and avoid labeling the victim with social stigma (Karmen, 2015, p. 5). Identification of the genuine victims who should be punished must be considered and not the pro-victim bias.

The similarities in victimology and criminology are that they both relate to crime and victims. The criminal justice system is dependent on both these fields so that justice could be served to the rightful ones and crime should be punished (Karmen, 2015, p. 20). The differences between the both include the emphasis of victimology only on the victim and the effect the crime had on him so that he could be restored back to normal life.

The bystanders are not necessarily required to notify the police as they can avert their gaze, escape the trouble and choose to mind their own business so they do not get involved in the unrequired worry (Karmen, 2015, p. 21). However, as socially responsible citizens, they can choose to notify in order to help the victims gain justice.

In the first stage of the rediscovery process, attention is gained for the problem that is overlooked (Karmen, 2015, p. 54). The second stage is about achieving victories and applying reforms. The third stage is for opposition and its emergence and also for the resistance for further societal changes. The fourth stage discusses the disputes of research and interim resolutions.

The concepts of victim facilitation and precipitation are controversial today when applied to sexual assaults and rapes since the interpretation of the offender can create huge discrepancies (Amir, 1968). There exists a situational aspect as to what behavior or action from the victim is considered ‘inviting’ while in other circumstances, other people might consider it anything otherwise.

The strategies to reduce rape include the education of women and young girls about being more vigilant of the risky situations, taking appropriate precautions, having control over the familiar offenders, and eliminating the biases against this gender (Karmen, 2015, p. 374). The only pro of changing the women’s behavior would be the avoidance of rape to some extent while changing the mindset of the opposite gender, which is male, should be done primarily. The cons include women being on the constant edge of the fear of whether their certain behavior would be considered “inviting”, especially the clothes and physical demeanor.

It is possible for a person to be crime conscious, especially the one who has been victimized earlier. According to the risk reduction strategies, a sacrifice of leaving giving up the mobile phone and wallet to the road snatcher would be a better idea in exchange for one’s own life. The offenders who are armed, especially with loaded guns are more prone to shoot a victim in any part of his body; hence, it is suggested to sacrifice and display prudence.

It is impossible to prevent victimization but it is possible to reduce the risks. The expensive measures that would cost individuals, companies and the government might include home and society visits by police officers to keep a check at the community and possible offenders, increased police patrol, family therapies, and parent training for identifying at-risk adolescents, schools coming in for building teams for the same purpose, and correctional camps within and outside the prison (Sherman et al., 1998).

The most dangerous thing I do while entering the hot-spot zones is the asking route to my destination and coming in contact with possibly some of the criminals of the area. The actions that I can take to reduce my risk are to either take an alternate route or take help from my mobile technology that has various applications these days to guide a person about alternate routes. A change that would be unreasonable or impractical would be going on the risky route without the phone.

Undertaking crime prevention on a governmental level would be a more socially responsible approach rather than asking individuals to adopt victimization prevention strategies since a holistic approach is required. All the individuals could not be urged, based on their personal attitudes and beliefs towards crime, to act upon victimization prevention strategies. However, the government can choose a proactive tactical handling technique so that citizens come under a safety shield altogether.

Three different robberies scenarios could be: a robber forcefully entering the house to have some goods and money, a robber entering the house asking for help but when the house owner answers negatively the robber takes out a knife, and a robber enters the house and puts the owner on the gunpoint to have his money and a luxurious car parked in the garage. In the first case, the victim can ask for the robber’s punishment while in the second scenario, the victim can ask for offender rehabilitation since, on inquiry, it was revealed that the offender was extremely helpless as he had recently been bankrupted six months ago and wanted money for his family and children’s school fees. In the last scenario, the victim can ask for restitution as his car was insured.

Certain details about the shooting are explained as follows: The police department is in search of a criminal who was identified in an area. The police cleared the area by asking the citizens in the nearby stores and public places to hide or go to safe places while in such a hurry situation and the police shootout, one of the citizens is shot in the arm. The police department should ideally transfer the hurt man to the nearby hospital as soon as possible and compensate for his hospital charges. If the outcomes are reversed, the local police should be vigilant about the safety of the citizens by assigning this job to some persons of their team to ensure that the citizens are in safe places.

There are several useful purposes of restitution such as offering the victims partial or complete compensation for their financial losses which they cannot fulfill on their own otherwise (Lewis & Clark, n.a.). The financial losses that are the direct result of the committed crime should be compensated through criminal and juvenile courts so that offenders should know the cost of the crime. Also, the purpose is the deterrence of crime as well as rehabilitation and liability of the offender.

The advantages of suing an offender in court are that a settlement amount could be gained as compensation for the financial loss, there is less stress, confidentiality is ensured, and less time is required for the damage compensation rather than a trial. Disadvantages could include favorable decision for the defendant who might have committed a bigger crime but has not been justified with an equal amount of punishing, only a certain amount of money if given to the victim which seemed unfair, and lesser compensation would be rewarded to the victim as compared to expectations.

Third-party lawsuits are potentially lucrative since the victim can assert their legal rights with the help of an expert in a rightful manner. There are high chances that the victim would be rewarded with equitable premiums in the end, which proves lucrative for him. However, it is controversial as making money out of the justice system seems inappropriate (White, 2016).

The argument favoring the establishment of the victim compensation funds by the state government using tax revenue is that the tax is paid by the citizens for their social wellbeing and protection. Therefore, this money could be used for compensation of those citizens again for providing financial reimbursements. Conversely, the taxpayers’ money should not be used for this purpose since one victim should not be reimbursed from the tax money paid by several citizens at a time. The government should play its own part in the financial compensation of such victims and not rely on taxpayer’s money.

The notoriety for profits does allow the offenders to pay from their criminal profits to the victims; however, if the victim believes that ‘crime does not pay’ then the victim can ask for restitution through legal means (Karmen, 2015, p. 450). The government and the law courts can help the distressed ones. The controversy about criminals paying from their profits still exists as opposing views from both sides persist.

The property crime has apparently lessened since another type of crime, which is legally not considered a ‘theft’ in some countries. It is believed to be a fraud since the difference between fraud and theft is that theft is done forcefully while fraud is taking assets with a deliberate misrepresentation of the identity (Bochetto Lentz, 2015). Since every activity is now accrued out online, identity theft is more approachable for the offenders rather than doing burglaries on physical properties. Scams and internet frauds have been on the rise during pandemic times in particular.

Terminology matters a lot, especially in the case of interpretation of the crime and its serious consequences. The vague language, phrasing, and description of the criminal act could change the after-effects and punitive actions to be taken for the offender (Karmen, 2015, p. 347). For example, the meaning of domestic violence and domestic disturbance is not the same as the terms spouse abuse and intimate partner abuse have been misinterpreted. The punishments of each of these criminal acts are different and have varying levels of severity of the penalty.

The pro of officers following a mandatory or pro-arrest-the-aggressor directive at the domestic disturbance scene is catching the offender at the spot before he inflicts serious harm to the victim. The con could include the offender becoming more aggressive and aggravating the situation that might go out of control rather than gaining control over it, resulting in unintentional harm to the victim or the police officer. In the case of a prosecutor officer where a no-drop policy for IPV arrest would be conducted, the pro could be reasonable punitive actions for the offender while con can encompass the removal of the offender or victim’s discretion without informing them (Criminal Procedures, 1999).

The reason battered women do not leave their abusive partners could be for financial assistance. Also, if a woman needs a place to live and that could only be provided by her partner, she would be forced to live with him even in a miserable condition.