Lingual injury
| Author | Dana Pugach,Natti Ronel,Anat Peleg |
| DOI | 10.1177/0269758017730199 |
| Date | 01 January 2018 |
| Published date | 01 January 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Lingual injury: Crime
victims between the
criminal justice system
and the media
Dana Pugach
Ono Academic College, Israel
Anat Peleg
Bar-Ilan University, Israel
Natti Ronel
Bar-Ilan University, Israel
Abstract
This qualitative, phenomenological study conducted in Israel consisted of interviews with 14 close
relatives of murder victims whose cases generated media interest. The research offers a com-
prehensive view of the endeavors of the participants to be heard in both the criminal justice system
and the media. The findings indicate that despite the growing recognition of co-victims’ rights and
media attention to their narratives, both the justice system and the media disappoint these victims
and largely fail to respond to their need to convey their messages. The participants experienced
‘lingual injury:’ the repudiation and muting of their own language in favor of professional jargon.
Lingual injury is an innovative concept that describes particular aspects of secondary victimization;
it contributes to the existing literature by enabling a detailed mapping of co-victims’ simultaneous
difficulties in the interplay between the criminal justice system and the media. It highlights the need
for developing professional tools, both legal and victimological, to alleviate this situation.
Keywords
Co-victims, criminal justice system, homicide victims, media, victimization
Corresponding author:
Dana Pugach, Ono Academic College, Tzahal St 104, Kiryat Ono, Israel.
Email: dana.noga@ono.ac.il
International Review of Victimology
2018, Vol. 24(1) 3–23
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0269758017730199
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
Introduction
Secondary victimization is a key concept in victimology, a field of growing importance. Within
this field, there is an expanding body of research centered on co-victims, that is, family members of
murder victims. It is generally agreed that co-victims should be treated with consideration and
respect (Van Dijk, 2014), but co-vict ims, like victims of crime, often exp erience the various
systems they encounter after victimization as harmful and lacking respect (e.g. Svensson, 2007;
Van Wijk et al., 2016). These include the cri minal justice system (CJS) and the media, both
powerful systems whose harmful impact on victims has been studied (e.g. Gekoski et al., 2013;
Groenhuijsen and Letschert, 2014). However, the interactions of co-victims with these two sys-
tems, which are often concurrent, and their combined contribution to secondary victimization have
not yet been researched. Against this background, the purpose of this research was to assess the
complex, often simultaneous interaction with both the CJS and the media as experienced by co-
victims of homicide.
1
Research has documented the severe impact of homicide on co-victims. The effects are both
long- and short-term, and cover all aspects of life—psychological, physical, and functional (Con-
nolly and Gordon, 2015; Van Wijk et al., 2016; Walters, 2015). Furthermore, co-victims have been
found to perceive themselves as direct victims of crime (Yanay, 2005). As such, they may well
constitute a unique sub-category in the study of the impact of crime and of the CJS, as reflected in
often-used terms such as ‘survivors of homicide’ or ‘murder survivors’ (Connolly and Gordon,
2015; Walters, 2015). These expressions reflect the finality of homicide compared with other
crimes in that the direct victim is absent (Kay, 2006). In the current study, we focused on co-
victims who were close relatives of murder victims; as such, they suffered from severe trauma and,
in the absence of the direct victim, were left to take their place in the legal proceedings. Therefore,
it was beyond the scope of the present study to compare the participants (co-victims of homicide)
with the immediate victims. Nevertheless, a certain similarity to the plight of victims in the CJS
may be cautiously hypothesized due to the difficulties they faced, as is consistently shown by
research (Connolly and Gordon, 2015; Van Wijk et al., 2016). In several countries, victims’ rights
laws recognize this position and transfer victims’ rights to family members in homicide cases (e.g.
CVRA, 2004). Thus, without suggesting that their plight is identical to that of direct victims, in this
research we analyzed the experience of co-victims in the light of studies that focused specifically
on co-victims, as well as research on victims.
The demands of crime victims to be heard and recognized by both the CJS and the mass media
are intertwined (Greer, 2007; Rentschler, 2007; Walklate, 2009). The link between the legal and
media discourses stems from long-term processes that have empowered the role of the media and
its spillover effects on social institu tions, including the legal community (P eleg and Bogoch,
2012). Thus, it has been more important for social actors and institutions, including co-victims,
to use the media to reach larger groups in society, in order to voice concerns and promote their
interests. In this research, we combine legal theories with knowledge of victimology and of the
media to create an analytical framework to examine the implications of the co-victims’ dual efforts
to communicate their concerns concurrently in the legal system and the media.
The voice of victims in the criminal justice system
It is widely accepted that victims deserve to be heard by CJS officials. Theoretical support for
this argument may be divided into two categories. The first is a utilitarian rationale, that
4International Review of Victimology 24(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial