International Journal on Criminology Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 56

International Journal on Criminology
Based on observations in victimology
and victim support, specific provision
should be made for real, professional victim-assistance
initiatives (legal, judiciary,
psychological, and social ones), in the immediate,
short-term, mid-term, and even
long-term aftermath of the event. In contrast
to the victimizing passivity of the protagonists
which still characterizes criminal
procedures, it is therefore important to allow
victims and their families to become
as active as they are willing and able to in
dealing with the consequences and repercussions
of the infringement, which present
severe dangers for social harmony.
B – From Representation Alone to
the Empowerment of Crime Victims
The move towards overall reparation
for victims of offenses and their families
seems to be the best example of
effective collaboration between victimologists,
jurists, victim support professionals,
the police, magistrates, and (more generally)
all of those socio-judiciary players
involved in the prevention, control, and
treatment of the criminal phenomenon,
including as legislators. However, effectiveness
(the criminal justice system’s capacity
to assume the staffing and resource costs
of these three complementary missions) is
not necessarily synonymous with efficiency
(be it pragmatic, in order to resocialize and
make amends to those concerned, symbolic
for the purposes of restoring social peace,
or educational in order to ensure respect for
the protected value and legitimate punishment
for transgressions). The proof lies in
the permanency of the attenuated but still
insidious forms of secondary victimization,
which are highly destabilizing and even
traumatizing. The only effective defense
against these aberrations is the professionalism
of the various people who recognize
the human dignity of the victim and/or
their loved ones and allow them to exercise
their rights fully and easily.
In this sense, it is notable that works in victimology
were quick to observe the perverse
manifestations of secondary victimization.
Feminist victimologists showed,
during victimization investigations (which
they were the first to develop), that victims
suffered entirely unjust secondary victimization
at the hands of by the criminal
justice system, from police to judge (be it
an investigating judge, a trial judge, or an
enforcement judge) (Symonds 1980; Baril
2002; Gaudreault 2004). Moreover, this serious
neglect of victims, which slows their
referral to the relevant authorities to address
their suffering, is common and threatens
both their dignity and the principles of
a fair trial. Victims suffer derision (in response
to the reported facts), provocation
(regarding the “credibility” of their claims),
scorn (concerning the consequences of the
affair and the trial process), and abandonment
(regarding the recovery of compensation
awarded).
Just as importantly, the works of
feminist victimologists have allowed victims
to finally be recognized through their
sufferings, whether the offence is reported
or not, and even if it is dismissed during
the proceedings. After classical assertions
on “victimogenic” factors, these investigations
allowed them to systematize the personal
and social characteristics of crime. In
this sense, and schematically, the most serious
victimizations mostly take place not in
public transport or parking lots, but in the
family home itself. Consequently, in most
cases, the victim knows their aggressor. In
short, victims live in various and severe situations
of vulnerability. Marital and sexual
violence is, as a rule, chronic and extremely
54