International Journal on Criminology Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 57

The Impact of Victimological Theories on the Rights of Crime Victims in France
victimizing (Baril 2002). The links between
violence committed and suffered are highly
apparent. More specifically, the main reasons
for victimizations not being reported
to the relevant authorities are clearly identifiable:
the victims are vulnerable, they fear
reprisals, they are ashamed to reveal what
they have suffered or been unable to prevent,
and they fear or do not understand the
solutions available to them.
In light of these works, it is unsurprising
that their authors rightly assert the
need to develop far more sophisticated
ways of dealing with offenses, undoubtedly
on the juridical-penal level (sanctioning
the perpetrator and compensating the victim),
but also and even more so on the psychological
and social levels (supporting the
victim, and healing trauma). Thus, during
the 1960s, the first victim support services
emerged in the Anglo-Saxon countries, for
victims of (mostly male) violence, such as
domestic mistreatment and sexual violence.
In France, the first such services were created
in the early 1980s. Today, their work
is broader, extending to all types of offenses
and gender of the perpetrator.
In the same vein, victim representation
by law professionals at all stages of
the criminal procedure, the low importance
given to their words, and their very place in
the courtroom have all made victims passive,
invisible, and powerless. Such inhumanity
in “taking charge of ” victims (with
various players using their powers to speak
for them) has given way (although still not
entirely) to their being “taken into account”
(with various players using their powers to
help them exercise their rights), via a “onestop
shop” strategy. Today, all professionals
know that if the victim’s sufferings are not
recorded when they are first revealed, it will
be very traumatizing for them to return to
them, because “repeating is redoing and reliving.”
This is why it is so important to have
truly competent frontline professionals, and
readily available technical recording methods.
From an ethical point of view, all
victims have a set of three rights which are
inherent to their victimized-person state,
and which are not dependent on any criminal
procedure. These rights have two aims:
to guarantee their human dignity and the
rights connected to it, and to reinforce their
role as active subjects. Concerning the latter
aspect, it is necessary to overcome the
widespread confusion between the victim’s
“role,” “status,” “place,” and “state.” It goes
without saying that victims should never be
able to lose their state as a person. Nevertheless,
crime deeply and sometimes lastingly
shakes life’s most fundamental beliefs: that
the world around us is benevolent, that it is
well ordered (has meaning), and that we are
part of it as a harmonious contributor. In
order to give (back) meaning to their lives,
victims need to understand what has happened
to them, and what they might have
done to prevent it. If victims lack answers,
they will tend to blame themselves and other
people. Unable to regain control over their
own lives, they lose their self-esteem, and
feel degraded and dehumanized, thus becoming
even more vulnerable (Janoff-Bulman
1992; Luminet 2008; Williams and
Poijula 2013; Horowitz 2013). In order for a
victim wanting to regain control to be able
to take on this kind of role, they must be
given a specific status, made up of subjective
rights that regulate their situation, independently
of any proceedings or criminal
courts. Similarly, if the victim so wishes,
they must be offered a place throughout the
criminal proceedings and take a clear position
in the courtroom space. However, this
must be on the condition that they are given
the possibility of escaping the traditional
passive role to which the criminal justice
system still confines them, so that they can
55