Revisiting the Scope of Victimology — How Broad a Discipline Should it Be?
| Author | Sam Garkawe |
| Date | 01 November 2004 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026975800401100205 |
| Published date | 01 November 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
International Review
of
Victimology, 2004, Vol.l l , pp.275-294
0269-7580/04 $10
© A B Academic Publishers
-Printed
in Great Britain
REVISITING THE SCOPE OF VICTIMOLOGY-HOW
BROAD ADISCIPLINE SHOULD IT BE?
SAM GARKAWE*
Southern Cross University, Australia
ABSTRACT
Should there be any limitations on who is defined as a 'victim'for the purposes of the discipline
of victimology? Does the discipline extend beyond the traditional study of victims of crime, to
include, for example, the study
of
victims
of
natural disasters, poverty, HIV/AIDS, and all forms
of
repression and discrimination? While this issue was frequently discussed in the earlier years
of
modern victimology, since the agreement
ofthe
UN General Assembly to the 1985 UN Declaration
of
Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse
of
Power(the 'Declaration'),debate
on this issue seemed to have subsided. The title of the Declaration suggests that a consensus
emerged that victimology should only include victims
of
crime and victims of abuse
of
power,
each
of
these terms having specific definitions as found in the Declaration.
However, it appears that many victimologists do not necessarily accept the definitions and
limitations
of
the Declaration. They argue that victimology ought to be concerned with all forms
of
human suffering, regardless
of
their origin. This article aims critically to assess the arguments
and counter-arguments to this perspective. It concludes that there is no strong justifiable reason to
limit the scope of the discipline, although for practical reasons it will often be necessary for
particular research projects, victim advocacy and courses to establish clear parameters around
which types
of
victims they will be concerned.
INTRODUCTION
Victimology is not an exercise to amuse the curious, it is not an activity to
enhance the careers
of
scholars, and it is not a ritual to soothe the
conscience
of
politicians. In the final analysis it is a sincere endeavor to
improve the human condition. (Dussich, 2003: p. 4)
Victimology consists of the scientific study of 'victims'. Aseemingly simple,
yet in reality quite complex question is what types
of
victims should be included
within the discipline
of
victimology? In the formative years of modem victimo-
logy prior to the 1950s it was conceived as a very broad field (Elias, 1986: p. 18).
*Associate Professor, School
of
Law and Justice, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW,
Australia. This is an updated version
of
part
of
a paper the author presented at the 11th International
Symposium on Victimology, held on 13-18 July 2003, at SteUenbosch, South Africa. The author
benefited from the many people who gave him feedback at the Conference on his presentation,
particularly Dr. Paul Omaji, who also provided comments on an early draft ofthis article. The author
is also grateful to the two anonymous referees for their valuable comments on an earlier draft
of
this article.
276
However, by the 1950s the focus had turned to the issue of the possible role of
victims in criminal acts, primarily due to the writings of criminologists such as
von Hentig (1948), Mendelsohn (1956) and Schafer (1968), who became the
early pioneers of victimology. Thus, when the modern discipline of victimology
became well established in the late 1960s, it seemed to only encompass victims
of crime. This was reinforced by the fact that by the 1970s and 1980s the
discipline became increasingly driven by practitioners directly involved in sup-
port and assistance to victims of crime. For sometime then there appeared to be
much agreement concerning the scope of victimology between those interested
in its scientific or academic study and those who were mainly engaged in
assisting victims of crime in a practical way.
However, psychologists and other mental health practitioners became aware
that the trauma suffered by victims of crime was similar in some ways to that
suffered by victims of war, including people imprisoned in various types of
camps during World War Two and the Vietnam War. Later, the growing interna-
tional human rights movement showed that there were similarities between the
suffering of victims of crime and victims of all types of oppression and discrimi-
nation that did not necessarily amount to a breach of the criminal laws of the
state. This included government wrongdoing in circumstances where govern-
ments had legally, but immorally, authorised the wrongdoing to take place, such
as that found under the government policies of Nazi Germany and apartheid
South Africa. Furthermore, various scholars and activists concerned with envi-
ronmental issues, 'white collar' crime and government corruption and/or incom-
petence began to make the case that victims of environmentaldegradation, fraud
and government wrongdoing, respectively, should also be given more consider-
ation.
It was thus not surprising in light of these movements that some victimolog-
ists, primarily those who were concerned with its scientific and academic
aspects, began to maintain that victimology should not be confined to crime
victims, but needed to include many more types of victimization than was
originally conceived by the early pioneers of the discipline. Some asserted that
there should be no limitations on the types of victims that victimology should
include. The arguments for and against these divergent views on the scope of
victimology will be described and critically examined in detail in the third part
of this article. Before this analysis, however, we will consider how victimolog-
ists in the past have viewed the issue of the scope of victimology, and will then
focus on the possible effects on this issue of the important agreement by the
United Nations General Assembly to the 1985 Declaration
of
Basic Principles
of
Justice
for
Victims
of
Crime and Abuse
of
Power (the 'Declaration').
To continue reading
Request your trial