RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56

VICTIMOLOGY TODAYRECENT THEORETICAL AND APPLIED DEVELOPMENTS
Ezzat A. Fattah*
I. INTRODUCTION
Criminology today is very different from
criminology at the end of the 19th century
or the first half of the 20th century. And
victimology is very different fromvictimology in the 1950’s or the 1960’s.
Scientific disciplines undergo constantevolution, though the pace of change mayvary from one discipline to the other.
Victimology has undergone not only arapid, but also rather fundamental,
evolution in the last two decades.
Twenty years ago, in 1978 at theInternational Congress of Criminology heldin Lisbon, Portugal, I presented a paper
entitled “Some Recent Theoretical
Developments in Victimology”. The paper
was published in the only victimologicaljournal available at the time (Victimology:
An International Journal, Vol.4, no.2,
pp.198-213). In the paper, I pointed to thediscipline’s transformation from a‘victimology of the act’ to a ‘victimology ofaction’. I explained how in its beginning,
victimology was essentially the victimologyof specific crimes: victimology of violent
crimes, i.e, homicide; victimology of sexual
offences, i.e, rape; victimology of property
crimes, i.e, burglary and fraud. These
pioneer theoretical studies of early
victimology were soon overshadowed bymajor developments in the applied field,
well-intentioned and persistentendeavours aimed at alleviating the plightof crime victims, and at providing themwith the services, aid and assistance that
* Professor Emeritus, School of Criminology, Simon
Fraser University, Canada.

60

would help them cope with, and recoverfrom, the harmful and traumatic effects ofvictimization. The paper also made anattempt to explain the reasons for thistransformation and the forces that played
a vital role in bringing about the change.
So what has happened in victimology
since that scientific meeting twenty years
ago? The decades of the 1980’s and 1990’s
could easily be described as a period of
consolidation, data gathering theorization,
new legislation, victim compensation,
redress and mediation, assistance andsupport.
II. CONSOLIDATIONIn the last few years, the discipline ofvictimology firmly established itself on theacademic scene. There was a substantial
increase in the number of universities andcolleges offering courses in victimology andrelated subjects. A large number of books
and articles were published in different
languages, and in addition to several
periodicals published in local languages, anInternational Review of Victimology, in
English, was put out by AB Academic
Publishers in Britain. A number of nationaland regional societies of victimology were
established. Japan has been one of theleaders in this respect, thanks to thetireless efforts of Professor Koichi
Miyazawa, the world renowned
victimologist, and a dynamic group of his
students and followers.
The World Society of Victimology
continued to hold its international
symposia once every three years. The lastone, the ninth in the series, was held in112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Amsterdam in August 1997, and drew a
record number of participants. All in all,victimology is no longer a subject of
bewilderment or curiosity but is slowly
becoming a household name. This is being
facilitated by the extensive coverage crimenews and victim issues are receiving in themass media; by the wide publicity victims’
programs are getting and by the
proliferation of victim services and victim
assistance programs in many countries.
The last twenty years saw the creationand extremely rapid expansion of victim
services. Victim assistance programs,
totally non-existent a couple of decades ago,
have mushroomed all over the globe from
Australia to Europe, from South America
to Asia, and from the large Islands of Japanto the relatively small Canary Islands.
One of the most important developmentsin the field of victimology in the last twenty
years was the formal approval by theGeneral Assembly of the United Nations
on November 11, 1985 of the “UN
Declaration of Basic Principles of Justicefor Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power”.
In adopting it, the General Assembly statedthat it was “Cognizant that millions ofpeople throughout the world suffer harm
as a result of crime and abuse of power, andthat the rights of these victims have not beenadequately recognized”.
III. DATA GATHERING AND
THEORY FORMULATION
One of the primary tasks of theoreticalvictimology is to collect empirical data on
crime victims. The main instrument usedat present to collect this information is
victimization surveys. They are conductedat the local, regional, national andinternational level. Notable among thesesurveys are the ones that are carried out
on a regular basis, at regular intervals, inEngland and the US: the British Crime

Survey and the National Crime Survey in
the United States. Each of these surveys
yields a wealth of information on crime
victims. Both of them allow a thoroughanalysis of the temporal and spatial
patterns and trends in various types ofvictimization. The original goal of thesesurveys, namely counting victimization,
has been largely expanded and several newquestions were added in recent years to the
instrument to explore various areas suchas the levels of fear of crime, the levels ofsatisfaction with police action, the reasonsfor not reporting the incident to the police,
the consequences of victimization, etc.
Another area that was examined was themeasures taken by the respondents toprevent certain types of offences, or tominimize the chances of future
victimization. Some surveys tried toestablish whatever link may exist between
offending and victimization by including
questions requesting respondents to selfreport acts of delinquency they might havecommitted. These latter questions led tosome very interesting findings.
In their London (England) survey,
Sparks, Genn, and Dodd (1977) foundvictims of violent crime to be significantly
more likely than non-victims to self-report
the commission of violent crimes.
Gottfredson (1984) analysed the 1982
British Crime Survey data and was struckby the relatively strong inter-relationshipbetween offending and victimization. For
persons with at least one self-reported
violence offence, the likelihood of
victimization was 42 percent, or seventimes the likelihood of personal
victimization for persons reporting no selfreported violent offences. The British
Crime Survey of Scotland (Chambers andTombs, 1984), revealed that 40 percent ofrespondents admitting an assault werethemselves assault victims during that
period.

61

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
Despite the methodological and practicalproblems of victimization surveys anddespite their limitations, they have allowed
researchers to collect a huge amount ofdata on victims of crime that is extremelyrich in variety and detail. Thanks tovictimization surveys we now know thatcriminality and victimization are clustered
within certain groups and certain areas,
and that there is much greater affinity
between offenders and victims than iscommonly believed. This is not to say thatall victims of crime share the attributes of
their victimizers. It is only to stress thatthe two populations have several common
characteristics. Whether in Europe, theUS, Canada or Australia, research showedthat offenders involved in the types ofcrimes covered by victimization surveys are
disproportionately male, young, urban
residents, of lower socio-economic status,
unemployed (and not in school), unmarried,
and in the US, black. Victimization surveys
revealed that victims disproportionately
share these characteristics and that thedemographic profiles of crime victims andof convicted criminals are strikingly similar(Gottfredson, 1984).
Several researchers ( Hindelang et al.,
1978; Singer, 1981) discovered that,particularly in crimes of assault, victims
and offenders were related in theirdemographic characteristics and in termsof certain shared responses to perceived
situations of physical or psychologicalthreat. It is understandable that thefrequency with which some individuals
become involved in violence-prone
situations will affect both their chances ofusing violence and of being recipients ofviolence, of attacking and being attacked,of injuring and being injured, of killing andbeing killed. Who will end up being thevictim and who will be legally considered
the offender depends quite often on chancefactors rather than deliberate action,planning, or intent. Thus, victim/offender62

roles are not necessarily antagonistic but
are frequently complementary andinterchangeable (Fattah, 1994d).
This situation is particularly true ofbrawls, quarrels, disputes, andaltercations. In many instances,
dangerousness and vulnerability may be
regarded as the two sides of the same coin.
They often coexist since many of the factorsthat contribute to dangerousness may
create or enhance a state of vulnerability.
One such factor is alcohol consumption,
which may act simultaneously as acriminogenic and as a victimogenic factor,
enhancing the potentiality of violent
behaviour in one party and of violent
victimization in the other (see Fattah andRaic, 1970).
An important step on the road tocomparative victimology was achieved withthe conducting of International Crime
Surveys. The surveys are a useful attempt
to collect standardized victimization datafrom a number of countries using the samequestionnaire in each country. The main
purpose was to avoid the problems ofcomparing data collected by means ofdifferent instruments, using different
methodologies. Field data for thisinternational crime survey were gatheredin January 1989 and published in 1990
(Van Dijk, Mayhew and Killias, 1990) . The
size of each nationally representative
sample varied between 1000 and 2000,
though most participating countries opted
for the larger size sample; the Federal
Republic of Germany even chose 5000
interviews.
Telephone interviewing was chosenbecause of its relatively modest costs, andit was decided to use the computer-assisted
telephone interviewing method (CATI
method), which allows for much tighter
standardization of questionnaireadministration. Respondents were asked

112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
about their victimization experience withnine types of crimes over the previous five
years, though victimization in 1988 washighlighted to give up-to-date annual risks.
The nine crimes covered were theft of motor
vehicles (cars, motorcycles and mopeds);
theft from motor vehicles; vandalism tomotor vehicles; burglary and attemptedburglary; robbery and attempted robbery;other thefts of personal property; sexualassault (women only); and assault. Victims
were then asked short questions about thenature and material consequences of crime;
whether the police were involved (and if
not, why not?) ; and their satisfaction withthe police response and any victim
assistance given.
A second round of the International
Crime Survey was carried out in 1992.
Some of the countries that participated in
the first survey such as Switzerland,
Norway and Northern Ireland did not takepart in the second one. But the survey
included some countries from Eastern
Europe which did not participate in thefirst one, such as Poland and the former
Czechoslovakia (see Del Frate et al., 1993).
Despite the proliferation of victimization
surveys and their unquestionable utility,
it is not yet clear what exactly they domeasure and what are their long term
objectives. Victimization is a personal
subjective and relative experience. The
feeling of being victimized does not always
coincide with the legal definition of
victimization. So what exactly are
victimization surveys trying to measure?
It is far from clear whether their objective
is to measure those criminal victimizations
that meet the criteria set by the criminal
code, or whether they are meant tomeasure the subjective victimizations
experienced by the respondents. These,needless to say, are two different realities.
Or to put it bluntly, are the surveys
designed to measure crime or

victimization? The titles ‘crime survey’ and‘victimization survey’ continue to be usedinterchangeably (Fattah, 1997).
Rape is good case in point because of theenormous gap that may exist between thelegal definition and the subjective
experience of the female. Also because thesexual act can be experienced in very
different ways by different women.
A. Theoretical Models
The wealth of data collected mainly
through victimization surveys has led tovarious theoretical formulations. Models
were developed to offer plausible
explanations for the variations invictimization risks, for the clustering of
victimization in certain areas and certain
groups, and to unravel the intriguing
phenomenon of repeat victimization. The
different models are presented andsummarized in my introductory
victimology book entitled ‘Understanding
Criminal Victimization’ (Prentice Hall,
1991).
One of the first and more importantmodels explaining the differential risks ofvictimization is the Lifestyle Modeldeveloped by Hindelang, Gottfredson andG a r o f a l o ( 1 9 7 8 ) . To d e v e l o p t h i s
explanatory model, the authors used
empirical data gathered from an eight-city
survey conducted by the United States
Bureau of Census in the cities of Atlanta,
Baltimore, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver,
Newark, Portland (Oregon) and St. Louisin 1972. Hindelang et al. (1978)
synthesized the findings and put forthsome propositions to account for variations
in risk and consequences of personal
victimization. Their model posits that thelikelihood an individual will suffer apersonal victimization depends heavily on
the concept of lifestyle.

63

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
Using lifestyle to explain variations inrisk is neither a novel nor a uniqueapproach. It has been known for a longtime that the probability of accidental
death or injury is, in many respects, related
to people’s lifestyle and the kind ofactivities in which they are involved.
Physicians have repeatedly stressed theclose link between lifestyle and routine
activities, and the risk of suffering certain
diseases such as cancer, high bloodpressure, and cardiovascular ailments. Asa matter of fact, the lifestyle concept
permeates the explanations of a higher orlower susceptibility to a wide variety of
diseases. We refer to lifestyle when we
maintain that those who smoke have ahigher risk of lung cancer than those who
do not; that those who expose themselves,
unprotected, to the sun have a greater
probability of skin cancer; that those who
drink heavily have a greater susceptibility
to liver disease. Lifestyle is also the central
concept in explanations linking dietary
habits, the lack of exercise and a sedentary
way of life, to heart disease. More recently,
lifestyle has been identified as a major risk
factor in contracting Aids. The belief thatlifestyle can influence the probability ofvictimization by increasing or decreasing
people’s chances of becoming victims ofcertain crimes may be seen as a simple, andin many ways logical, extension of theconcept to the social sphere.
Another explanatory model is the
Routine Activity Approach developed by
Cohen and Felson (1979). The focus in
Cohen and Felson’s approach is on “ directcontact predatory violations,” which arethose “involving direct physical contact
between at least one offender and at least
one person or object which that offender
attempts to take or damage” (Cohen andFelson, 1979, p.589).
Cohen and Felson (1979) argue that theoccurrence of these types of victimization

64

is the outcome of the conference in space
and time of three minimal elements:
motivated offenders, suitable targets, andabsence of capable guardians. The central
factors underlying the routine activity
approach are opportunity, proximity/
exposure, and facilitating factors. For
example, the abundance of goods that canbe stolen leads to higher rates of property
victimization (opportunity). The dispersionof routine activities in the United Statessince the end of World War II has led to a
substantial increase in predatory crime.
This shift of routine activities away fromthe home, and the greater interaction
between people who are not members of thesame household results in greater exposureof people to potential offenders outside thehome, and thus, increases the risk of directcontact predatory crime (proximity/
exposure). Concomitantly, the increasing
absence from home leaves the residences
insufficiently protected and renders themsuitable and easy targets for common types
of household victimization (facilitating
factors : the absence of capable guardians).
These are by no means the only models.
There is also the Opportunity Model(Cohen, Kluegel and Land, 1981) and theDutch Model (Steinmetz). The opportunity
model incorporates elements from both thelifestyle and routine activity perspectives
and posits that the risk of criminal
victimization depends largely on people’s
lifestyle and routine activities that bringthem and/or their property into directcontact with potential offenders in theabsence of capable guardians. The Dutch
model was developed by Van Dijk andSteinmetz who identified three main
factors: proximity, attractiveness andexposure, as important determinants ofdifferential victimization risks.
In an attempt to integrate the various
models into a comprehensive scheme I used
ten different components. There are :112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Opportunities: which are closely
linked to the characteristics ofpotential targets (persons,households, businesses) and to
the activities and behavior of
those targets.
Risk factors: particularly thoserelated to socio-demographic
characteristics such as age andgender, area of residence,
absence of guardianship.
Presence of alcohol and so forth.
Motivated offenders: this isbecause offenders, even nonprofessional ones, do not choose
their victim/targets at random
but select their victims/targets
according to specific criteria.
Exposure: this is because
exposure to potential offenders
and to high-risk situations andenvironments enhances the riskof criminal victimization.
Associations: the homogeneityof the victim and offender
populations suggests thatdifferential association is as
important to criminal
victimization as it is to crimea n d d e l i n q u e n c y. T h u s
individuals who are in close
personal, social or professional
contact with potential
delinquents and criminals run
a greater chance of being
victimized than those who arenot.
Dangerous times and dangerous
places: the risks of criminal
victimization are not evenly
distributed in time or space there are dangerous times suchas evenings, early night hours
and on weekends. There arealso dangerous places such asplaces of public entertainment
where the risks of becoming a
victim are higher than at work

or at home.
Dangerous behaviors: this isbecause certain behaviors, suchas provocation, increase the riskof violent victimization whileother behaviors such as
negligence and carelessness
enhance the chances of property
victimization. There are otherdangerous behaviors that placethose engaging in them indangerous situations where
their ability to defend andprotect themselves against
attacks is greatly reduced.
(8) H i g h - r i s k a c t i v i t i e s : a l s oincrease the potential for
victimization. Among suchactivities is the mutual pursuitof fun, as well as deviant andillegal activities. It is also wellknown that certain occupations
such as prostitution carry withthem a higher than averagepotential for criminal
victimization.
(9) Defensive/avoidance behaviors:
as many risks of criminal
victimization could be easily
avoided, people’s attitudes tothose risks can influence theirchance of being victimized. It
goes without saying that risktakers are bound to be
victimized more often than riskavoiders. It also means that fearof crime is an important factor
in reducing victimization, sincethose who are fearful take more
precautions against crime, evencurtailing their day and nighttime activities, thus reducing
their exposure and vulnerability
to victimization.
(10) Structural/cultural proneness:there is a positive correlation
between powerlessness,deprivation and the frequency of(7)65

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
criminal victimization. Cultural
stigmatization andmarginalization also enhances
the risk of criminal victimization
by designating certain groups as‘fair game’ or as culturally
legitimate victims.
IV. NEW LEGISLATION
There has been a flurry of victim
legislation in recent years in a large
number of countries. Following the
adoption of the UN Declaration of Basic
Principles of Justice for Victims, so-called
Victims’ Charter of Rights or Victims’ Billsof Rights were passed by the legislative
bodies in various societies.
In the United States there was an
attempt by the victim lobby to bring abouta change to the Sixth Amendment of the
US Constitution to provide a legal basis forprotecting the rights of crime victims, but
it did not succeed. However, as Karmen(1995, p339) reports, since 1980, in almost
every American state, legislatures passed
various statutes acknowledging basic
rights for victims: to be notified about andto participate in judicial proceedings, topromptly get back stolen property that wasrecovered, to be protected from
intimidation and harassment, and toreceive restitution or compensation.
Similar legislation was passed in
Canada, Australia, Britain and some other
European countries. Also in Europe,
victims received a considerable boost froma number of important initiatives in the
mid-1980s, including a Convention and two
important Recommendations by theCouncil of Europe in 1983, 1985 and 1987
(on, respectively, state compensation, theposition of the victim in the criminal justicesystem, and assistance to victims)(Maguire and Shapland, 1997, p212).

66

While legislative initiatives and/orchanges acknowledging victims rights weregenerally well received and encounteredlittle or no opposition in parliaments andlegislative assemblies, they are not without
critics. In a seminal article entitled ‘The
Wrongs of Victim’s Rights’ Lynn Henderson(1985, 1992) outlined many of the
weaknesses inherent in the notion of
victim’s rights and many of the dangers ofvictim’s rights legislation.
One particular initiative that hasreceived a great deal of criticism is ‘victim
impact statements’. VIS, designed to allow
victims some input in the court’s decisionin their case (by providing a statement of
the impact the victimization has had on
their lives and their families), was singled
out for particular criticism andencountered a lot of resistance from somequarters. In Australia, for example, after
reviewing the arguments for and against
victim impact statements, and after notingthat many victims do not wish to be
involved by giving evidence on the impact
of offences on their lives, the Victorian
Sentencing Committee concluded that thecase against the introduction of VIS was
more compelling than the case for them.
Consequently, the Committee (1988)
recommended that VIS not be adopted in
Victoria (p.545) (Fattah, 1992, p416; seealso Kelly and Erez, 1997, p236-7).
In the US, the Supreme Court barredvictim impact testimony in capital cases as
violating the Eight Amendment of theAmerican Constitution (Booth v. Maryland,
1987, and South Carolina v. Gathers, 1989)
and then in Payne v. Tennessee (1991) the
court upheld the use of victim impact
testimony at the sentencing stage of acapital case (Kelly and Erez, 1997, p2356).

112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
V. VICTIM COMPENSATION
Redress to crime victims in the form ofmonetary compensation by the state is thefirst attempt in recent history to alleviate
the plight of victims and to improve theirlot. In the 1960s, a British magistrate,
Margery Fry, and others called for State
compensation to crime victims, and theirpleas led to the creation of government
indemnification programs in New Zealand,
the United Kingdom, North America,
Europe and elsewhere. These programs
have been operating for more than aquarter of a century and many have been
the subject of varying kinds of assessments
and evaluation (Burns, 1980; Miers, 1978;
Doerner, 1978; Elias, 1983).
This is without doubt an area where
action has not matched the politicalrhetoric. Economic hardships andbudgetary restraints have greatly limited
the scope of compensation and the numberof victims who receive it. The evaluations
suggest that the amounts victims get fromthe schemes are, for the most part, token
amounts, and that the programs in reality
fulfill no more than a symbolic function. A
very tiny proportion of victims end up
receiving any compensation, and for those
who do, it is, more often than not, too little
and too late. Ironically, researchers (Elias,
1983a, 1983b) found that victims who apply
for and go through the process ofcompensation, even those who end up
receiving some funds, are less satisfied
than those who do not apply. In England,David Miers (1983, 1990), quoted by
Maguire and Shapland (1997, p218) argued
that state compensation is essentially asymbolic act by governments to show theirconcern for victims, but with little real
intention of following it through with hard
cash.
Most victims of property crime, who are
excluded from state compensation

schemes, do not have and cannot afford
private insurance. In four out of five casesin these property crimes, the culprit isneither identified nor caught. And the few
who are arrested, charged and convicted
are, more often than not, poor or insolvent,so that nothing could be obtained fromthem through a civil judgement. And to
add insult to injury, in most countries thecollection of criminal fines continues tohave priority over the payment of civil
damages or of restitution/compensation
orders.
In recent years, several governments
decided to transfer the financial burden of
victim compensation to offenders througha levy called ‘a victim fine surcharge’imposed on those who are sentenced to afine even if the sentence is for so-called
victimless crime (Fattah, 1997).
VI. OFFENDER RESTITUTION
Restitution by the offender to the victim
is one of the earliest forms of redress to
those who suffer injury or harm throughthe actions or negligence of another. This
was the composition or wergeld paid to thevictim or the victim’s kin. Parker (1977,p28) describes the historical developmentthat led to the emergence of the criminallaw:
At this stage of legal development
there was no differentiation between
what we know as crime or criminal
law and tort or civil liability fordamage inflicted. All injuries topersons or property were consideredas ‘wrongs’. The seriousness of thewrong depended upon the disruption
caused to the community or the actualor perceived affront to the injured
parties. Slowly, a distinction emerged
between wrongs which were private
disputes and required payment to theinjured party or his kin and wrongs

67

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
which had a public quality andrequired compensation to the wholegroup.
Since state compensation programs areoften strictly limited to victims of violence,
restitution by the offender has reemerged
as a means of redress in property offences
as well as in violent crimes. The problem
is that the vast majority of offenders areeither unemployed or do not have thefinancial means that would make itpossible for victims to collect restitution.
Added to this problem is the fact that inmany countries the collection of the penal
fine takes priority over restitution orders.
There are different models of restitution.
Maguire and Shapland (1997, p219) outline
three models that are common in Europe:
The ‘partie civile’ procedure, theaward of a compensation order aspart of a sentence against the offender,and restitution made informally or as
part of a diversion arrangement by theprosecution. The first two models
have tended to be seen as mutually
exclusive in jurisprudential terms, sothat one country has favoured one andanother, though the Netherlands iscurrently considering introducing
compensation orders while retaining
the possibility of using ‘partie civil’.
Citing the results of evaluation of anumber of local schemes conducted indifferent countries, Maguire and Shapland(1997, p221) write:
The conclusions seem universal.
Financial restitution figures in onlya small proportion of the cases sent
for mediation (the majority ending
with an apology or in some contract
concerning the offender’s behavior).
Mediation cases themselves remainvery much a minority disposal in68

terms of the flow of criminal justicecases overall. The dominant modelis still prosecution, or some form of
discontinuance (such as a formal
caution in England and Wales),sometimes accompanied by work withthe offender - but rarely involving thevictim.
VII. VICTIM SERVICES
The last twenty years have witnessed an
unprecedented development in the field ofvictim services. Victim services have beencalled the growth industry of the decade.
The expansion of service programs forvictims of crime in the United States,
Canada, the United Kingdom and manyother countries has been nothing short ofphenomenal. During the 1980s and the1990s, legislation was passed, services
were created, and programs were set up,
all aimed at helping crime victims andimproving their often unhappy lot (Fattah,
1992, p260). In the UK, it is considered
the fastest developing voluntary movement(see National Association of Victims
Support Schemes, 1984). In 1990, Davisand Henley estimated the number of victim
service programs in the United States tobe in excess of 5,000, whereas 20 years
earlier there had been none (p157).
Most assistance programs, particularly
those housed in police departments, refervictims, according to their needs, toexisting services within the community.
Some, in addition, provide victims withurgently needed help: replacing the broken
window, the damaged lock, fixing thevandalised car, driving, cleaning, shopping,
helping with the children and so forth.
There are also various programs thatprovide special assistance to certain
categories of victims, for example, victimsof rape, child victims of sexual assault,
victims of family violence, etc. Rape crisis
centres and shelters for battered women

112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
are currently operating in many places.
Overall, however, the two most important
services provided to crime victims by
victims assistance programs are
information and moral support.
Despite enormous strides, a great deal
remains to be done. Maguire and Pointing(1988, p37) note that victim support
remains essentially a ‘grassroots’, lowbudget enterprise which relies upon thegood will and hard work of volunteers.
Shapland, Willmore and Duff (1985, p178)
maintain that the major projects aimed atfulfilling victims’ needs were set up without
regard to, or even investigation of, victims’
expressed needs. Rock (1990, p408) insiststhat victims’ interests were never the
motivating or mobilizing force behind the
new initiatives to help victims. Mawby andGill (1987, p228) detected a right wing, law
and order focus among victim support
scheme volunteers. They expressed
concerns that crime victims might become‘the victims of political expediency’. While
Elias (1993, p120) affirms that victims’services really serve official needs, notvictims’ needs.
IX. CONCLUSION
I have tried to present a bird’s eye viewof recent developments in victimology, boththeoretical and applied. Victimology has
made enormous strides in the past twenty
years. As a result of ongoing studies andresearch, we now possess a betterknowledge than ever before of thephenomenon of victimization and of those
who are occasionally, frequently or
repeatedly victimized. We have adequate
knowledge of the distribution of
victimization in time and space, of the
dynamics of victimization, of the process
of victim/target selection, and we haveseveral theoretical models that are meant
to explain the variations in victimization
risks.

More progress has even been achievedat the applied level. The victim movement
has been very successful in sensitizing
politicians, policy makers, the criminal
justice system and the general public to theplight of crime victims. This has resulted
in a flurry of legislation aimed at improving
the sad lot of crime victims and atrecognizing and implementing some basic
rights for crime victims. Many steps havebeen taken to increase victim participationin criminal justice proceedings, to improve
the treatment of victims by criminal justicepersonnel, and to allow the victims some
input in criminal justice decisions.
There have been many otherdevelopments at the applied level. In many
countries, state programs to compensate
crime victims were set up. Restitution by
the offender is being ordered in a growing
number of cases, particularly in cases of
economic crimes, white collar crime, andproperty victimization. A paradigm shift
is slowly shaping up in criminal justice andthe growing realization of the futility ofpunitive/retributive justice is facilitating
the acceptance of the new paradigm ofrestorative justice. Restitution by theoffender (to the victim) is increasingly
becoming one of the primary conditions ofdiversion and of probation, both in thejuvenile and adult systems.
Programs for victim-offender mediation
both in serious as well as in minor offences
have been established in many countries
and in most cases, making amends by
repairing the harm done to the victim is
one of the primary conditions of successful
resolution of the conflict.
Victim services, practically non-existent
two decades ago, are becoming widespread
not only in the wealthy countries of theindustrialized world, but also in many
developing countries. Assistance, invarious forms, though mostly by well-69

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
intentioned volunteers, is being offered to
victims who desire it. Special assistanceto certain categories of victims, such as
victims of rape, child victims of sexualassault, and victims of family violence is
now available in many places. Shelters forbattered women and children have been
opened to help victims avoid the repetitionof victimization. Special counselling
programs are also made available to thefamilies of victims of homicide.
It can thus be concluded that theachievements have been many and in someinstances nothing short of spectacular. But
the road remains long and paved withobstacles. A great deal remains to be donein order to meet the challenge to victim
services in the next millennium.

70