International Journal on Criminology Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 47

International Journal on Criminology - Volume 2 Issue 1 - Spring 2014
The Impact of Victimological Theories on the Rights of
Crime Victims in France
Robert Cario
Victimological theories emerged as
an inevitable element of the criminological
observations (Pinatel
1975; Debuyst et al. 1998 and 2008) which
surrounded their creation at the beginning
of the 1950s. Due to the state of scientific
knowledge at the time, these theories had
a very narrow focus on the characteristics
of the act, the mechanisms of committing
a crime, and the personality of the perpetrator
1 alone. Nevertheless, they began
contributing to the strengthening of victim
rights, which until then had exclusively
focused on repairing bodily and material
damage. Undeniably, over recent decades,
victimological theories have helped to promote
the ongoing humanization of criminal
proceedings. This benefits all concerned
by the crime suffered/committed, from
the protagonists themselves to society as a
whole, including the numerous parties who
contribute to a cross-disciplinary strategy
of prevention, control, and optimum harmonious
treatment of the criminal phenomenon
(Cario 2008).
This study essentially aims to evaluate
the rights of (potential or real) victims of
crime, throughout the criminal process, by
examining contemporary criminal and penal
policies in light of victimology. The reparation
of the damages suffered has always
followed more or less vindictive procedures
(of elimination) or vindicatory ones (of
reciprocity, sharing, and reconciliation). It
cannot be said that responses to crime have
historically been based on the first of these,
with the second belonging more to a supposedly
civilized world. Although it is not
possible to precisely define how far a civilization
is concerned about human dignity,
particularly the dignity of those who may
be involved in crime, it seems that these two
methods of resolution/regulation of conflicts
between subjects have always existed,
or even coexisted. They continue today, although
symbolically, in view of the assertion
of the fundamental principles of criminal
law, the proclamation of human rights,
and the implementation of crime-fighting
policies which are far less concerned with
retribution than with taking people into account
(Laingui and Lebigre 1979 and 1980;
Carbasse 2006; Garnot 2009; Zehr 1990).
Despite its imperfections (particularly
the social status of the person concerned),
the adversarial system long allowed
for consideration of the victim, whose active
involvement was a necessary element
in any criminal procedure. Although the
inquisitorial system had its advantages (the
state initiated proceedings, in principle for
the benefit of all victims), it excluded the
victim from procedures which directly concerned
them. However, in both cases, many
criminal conflicts were “resolved” without
any official litigation by tradition or law.
The pervasiveness of infrajustice throughout
our criminal history cannot be denied.
1
The term perpetrator should be used only to refer to people who have broken the criminal norm (whatever
it may be), for at least two key reasons: the first lies in the temporal and geographical variability of criminal
systems, and the second in the presumption of innocence that protects those who have not been proven guilty.
Obviously, it may refer to people carrying out a sentence of imprisonment or a sentence within society.
45