Week 3: Victims’ Theory Matrix In the interest of simplifying our theoretical understanding of victimology, we begin by dividing its theories into two basic categories, conflict and consensus theories. Many other theories exist and you will study more of them in this and other courses. Most of them will fit under the headings of conflict or consensus as defined below. One view is often considered a more liberal view (conflict) and the other is seen as more conservative (consensus). Both theories focus on victims but differ in terms of what they perceive to be generating factors for crime and the most appropriate treatment of offenders. VICTIMS' THEORIES Consensus Theories Theories that focus upon the social structures of society with an emphasis on the need for Theories that focus on the conflict between society to be stable and funcIonal. They various interests within a society . These generally assume that members of society theories focus on power struggles and typically share core values and beliefs in what is right view the less fortunate and less powerful as and wrong. These theories view the vicIms vicIms. They see crime vicIms as exploited of crime as defined by a consensus view in and as the prey of the strong and powerful. which agreement is implied in terms of Changes in laws and economic condiIons are definiIons and treatment. Consensus oJen the remedies they seek for vicIms. viewpoints oJen argue for the punishment of criminals to protect vicIms. Conflict Theories An example of the conflict approach can be seen in the diagram above. Feminist theories, as typically applied to victims, focus on conflicts between men and women and often blame traditional power arrangements between men and women for domestic violence. An example of a theory that examines the effects of a consensus point-­‐of-­‐view is neutralization. Neutralization proposes that a deviant individual neutralizes or distances him or herself from society’s rules. A deviant person would feel that society’s rules do not apply to him or her and would deny any harm inflicted on others. For instance, many sex offenders do not feel guilt for their crimes because they “deny” that their victims suffer or convince themselves that their victims actually deserve the abuse. Others may tell themselves that they had no choice because of the need to show peers that they are tough or because it was an action they were required to perform to be a part of a group. In the discipline of victimology, the development of theories also comes through borrowing and applying criminological theories. Material is borrowed and applied from three sources: the stories and lives of actual victims, the research on victims conducted at universities, and the demands and politics within the criminal justice system process, or the criminal justice consensus. A convenient way of looking at the development of victimology is to consider a model proposed at the Second Victimology Congress by American criminologist Howard Kurtz. The field of victimology has been developed and informed by the accumulation of victim stories such as that of Candy Lightner that resulted in the development of “Mothers Against Drunk Driving” (MADD), or John Walsh, the developer of “America’s Most Wanted.” These individuals have touched a nerve with people resulting in greater victim’s awareness, the definition of key issues and problems, and the institutionalization of programs of change and control. University research on criminal justice issues received a huge boost from the passage of the Safe Streets Act of 1968 as funds to study all aspects of the criminal justice consensus were made available to scholars. Early studies focused on crime reporting and eventually led to the development of the National Victims’ Survey. As the victims’ movement gained steam in the United States, the criminal justice consensus itself began to transform to become more victim-­‐friendly. Prosecutors began to realize that convictions were easier to obtain if victims cooperated, so they began to cooperate in the development of victims’ compensation boards and agencies within the consensus, all to help victims. References: Matza, D. (1964). Becoming deviant. New Jersey: Prentice-­‐Hall, Inc. Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Matza, D., & Sykes, G. (1961). Juvenile delinquency and subterranean values. American Sociological Review, 26(5), 712–719. Matza, D., & Sykes, G. (n.d.). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. Retrieved from http://www.scienzepostmoderne.org/DiversiAutori/Matza/TechniquesOfNeutralization.html