This is the author’s version of a work that was submittedacce.docx
1. This is the author’s version of a work that was
submitted/accepted for pub-
lication in the following source:
Walklate, Sandra
(2016)
The Metamorphosis of the Victim of Crime: From Crime to
Culture and the
Implications for Justice.
International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy,
5(4), pp.
4-16.
This file was downloaded from:
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/111804/
License: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0
Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes
such as
copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this
document. For a
definitive version of this work, please refer to the published
source:
https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i4.280
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Walklate,_Sandra.html
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/111804/
https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i4.280
3. has proceeded as if ‘“testis” (the testimony of a
person as a third partyin a trial or a law
suit) can be conflated with “superstes” (a person
who has livedthrough somethingand can thereby bear
witness to it)’. The paper makes the
case that this conflation has consequences for
understandings of justice.
Keywords
Metamorphosis, victimhood, narratives, justice.
Please cite this article as:
Walklate A (2016) The metamorphosis of the victim
of crime: From crime to culture and
the
implications for justice. International Journal for
Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 5(4): 4‐
16. DOI: 10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i4.280.
This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence. As an
open access journal, articles are free to use, with
5. course,
it is without doubt that this young childwas a
victim. Moreover it is without doubt that he
constituted an ‘ideal victim’ in every sense
of that term intended by Christie (1986).
However,
what are perhaps less visible are the processes behind
the contemporary, and apparently
acceptable, use of an image of this kind in a
wide range of media outlets. Awareness of
this
raises a number of questions the most pressing of
which is, arguably, how and why victimhood
has come to occupy the kind of position that it
does in informing cultural, political and policy
responses to a wide range of social problems,
from mass migration to domestic violence; from
the global to the local to the interpersonal.
The purpose of this paper is to reflect on
these
processes through the lens of victimology; to
consider the extent to which the discipline is
itself
well enough equipped to address concerns such as
these; and to ask somehard questions about
what this centring of the victim in this way
implies for understandings of justice. Put more
simply, as Fassin (2012: 29) asks, ‘What are
the consequences of this representation of the
world through pain?’
In order to do this the paper falls into three
parts. The first reflects on the contemporary
centring of victimhood through considering the
presence in two narratives: the victim
6. narrative
and the trauma narrative. The second considers the
extent to which Alexander’s (2012)
articulation of trauma as a master narrative
casts light on the metamorphosis of the victim
that
centres victimhood and conflates victimhood with
trauma. The third and final part of the papers
reflects on the consequences of this conflation for
policy and politics and focuses in particular
on questions of justice. Arguably, it is in this
arena that the unintended consequences of
the
metamorphosis of the victim are being most keenly
felt. First of all, however, it will be of value
to say somethingabout the victimological lens through
which theseissues are being considered.
On victimology
Victimology emerged as a sub‐discipline of
criminology in the aftermath of the Second
World
War. The ‘FoundingFathers’ of this sub‐discipline were,
on the one hand, concerned to correct
the offender focus of criminology, arguing that
any crime involved a ‘doer‐sufferer’ relationship
(a victim and an offender; see the work of von
Hentig 1948) and, on the otherhand, puzzled
by
the Holocaust, wanted to develop an area of
investigation that would help make sense of
such
mass atrocities and the role of the victim within
7. them (Mendelsohn 1956). These early
interventions led to the development of two key
concepts: victim precipitation and victim
proneness which subsequently framed the emergence
and dominance of what came to be
recognised as positivist victimology. (See McGarry
and Walklate 2015, chapter one for a fuller
discussion of the variegated nature of
victimology; and also see O’Connell 2008.)
This version of
victimology, emulating her sister discipline of
criminology, became pre‐occupied with
measuring the nature and extent of criminal
victimisation and the impact that such
victimisation has on people.
The dominance of what might be considered to
be a ‘quixotic quest for standardized
measures
in victimization’ (Spencer and Walklate, forthcoming,
2016) rests on the problematic
assumptions that what people may experience as
victimisation may never match with legal
definitions of such (Spencer 2011), overlaid
by some confusion of what is actually
being
measured by the victim surveys so favoured by
positivism. Fattah (2010: 51) asks:
Sandra Walklate: The Metamorphosis of the Victim of
Crime: From Crime to Culture and the
Implications for Justice
9. In an analysis concerned with issues that
somewhat pre‐date the emergence of positivist
victimology, Fassin and Rechtman (2009)
document what they call ‘psychiatric victimology’.
This version of victimology emanated from an
appreciation of the impact of trauma first
articulated in the work of Charcot in the 1850s.
Trauma as a concept has a range of
different
usages, from the medical to the psychological to
the psychic (and as shall be developed below,
the social). However Fassin and Rechtman (2009)
were particularly interested in the
intertwining of the intellectual appreciation of
trauma with its adoption within a particular
area
of professional expertise: psychiatry. This
intermeshing was a feature of the war‐time
experience, particularly the First World War, and
then latterly the Vietnam War. In each of these
contexts the concept of trauma acquired an added
moral dimensionconcerned with how to deal
with ‘malingerers’ in the case of the First World
War, and how to justify/explain the recourse to
excessive violence in the Vietnam War.
So, rather like positivist victimology, this psychiatric
victimology was concerned with the harm
done to individuals (and latterly collectivities) by
experiences that fractured the routine
patterns of everyday life on which people rely
but, in the case of psychiatric victimology,
such
experiences were not necessarily tied to what was
considered to be legal or illegal. In
addition,
10. as shall be seen, psychiatric victimology
was also implicitly embraced by voluntary
organisations and campaign groups wanting the pain of
those who they represented to be
recognised and responded to. Thus, this psychiatric
focus on harmforms the backcloth against
which it is possible to trace what might be
called a ‘trauma narrative’.
Interestingly thesetwo narratives are tied together by
their different pre‐occupation with what
Sennett (1998: 44) might understand as the
central importance of routine for everyday
life.
To imagine a life of momentary impulse, of
short‐term action, devoid of
sustainable routines, a life without habits, is to
imagine indeed a mindless
existence.
The disruptionof criminal victimisation and/or a
traumatic experience centres a ‘life without
habits’ into which each of the narratives discussed
below offers a different insight. In
addition it
is important to note that these two narratives
co‐existed – arguably in somewhat
separate
spheres of endeavour– until the late 1960s. At
this moment in history it is possible to
trace the
beginnings of the metamorphosis of the victim
and arguably of victimology, even perhaps that
12. victimology. The data generated by this
survey method gathered momentum during the
1970s and 1980s, culminating in the
production
of not only national criminal victimisation survey
data but also similar data gathered
internationally.Despite the problems inherent in this
method of data gathering (as discussed in
considerable detail by Hope 2007), such
data have afforded remarkable insights into the
patterning of criminal victimisation and its effects
across a wide range of jurisdictions. It
has
also constituted the bedrock of positivist victimology
and spawned a range of concepts with
which to understand the impact that
victimisation has on people. Understandings of
primary,
secondary and indirect victimisation all owe their origins
to the sophisticated development and
widespread use of criminal victimisation survey
data. In order to appreciatethe nature of
this
victim narrative it will be useful to say a
little about each of theseconceptual
developments in
turn.
Primary victimisation refers to the direct impact
that being a victim (of crime) has. Such
impacts
are many a varied and are usefully listed by
Hall and Shapland (2007: 3‐4). They can range
from
the loss experienced as a result of burglary to
the post‐traumatic stress reported by some
13. victims of rape (an important link with the trauma
narrative discussed below). These impacts
can also vary by individual dependingupon what else might
be going on in their lives (Maguire
and Bennett 1982), the extent to which their
sense of identity has been spoiled (Kearon
and
Leach 2000), and the nature of the
victimisation itself(see for example Hagan and
Rymond‐
Richmond (2009) on genocide in Dafur). So, primary
victimisation is hugely variable, contingent
on individual coping strategies,their persona, personal
relationships, and the kind of support
received. The nature of the response received affords
one link between primary and secondary
victimisation.
Much work emanating from the victim
narrative has paid attention to the extent to which
experiences of criminal justice systems can add a
further layerto the harmalready experienced.
This is secondary victimisation and has been well
documented for victims as witnesses,families
of murder victims (Rock 1998), families of
serious offenders (Condry 2007), those
subjected to
wrongful convictions (Jenkins 2013), and many
otherdisparate groups. Sometimes experienced
as re‐victimisation (Dunn 2007), this concern
with secondary victimisation has extended its
focus to those professionals charged with
responding to difficult circumstances (see for
example, Dekker 2013; Ullstrom et al. 2014).
Interestingly somecommentators have begun to
14. refer to secondary victimisation as trauma (see inter
alia Gekoski et al. 2013), an issueto which
I will return. Finally the concept of ‘indirect
victimisation’ has the capacity to move beyond
the
direct impact of victimhood on the individual or
collectivity to the wider more disparate effects
that such events might have on, for example, those
who share in the same ‘subject position’
(Spalek 2006), who are part of a wider
community of affects (viz the 2004 bombing in
Madrid
(Burkitt 2005) or the reverberations of 9/11 and
other events given widespread media
coverage afforded them, like the one with which
this paper began) in which we are all
potentially victim/witnesses (Howie 2012). So
the pre‐occupations of this victim narrative
have
blossomed from understanding the nature and effect
of criminal victimisation to considering the
extent to which those effects permeate not
just those so affected but also resonate on
the wider
community and society at large.
Alongside the burgeoning evidence base of this victim
agenda therehas been a concomitant
growth in victim‐centred organisations and
victim‐centred policy. Since the early1970s
groups
proclaiming to speak for the victims of crime
have grown apace. Such growth and development
16. has
happened to them, to revisit the past through
the knowledge and eyes of the present (see
inter
alia, Lynch and Argomaniz 2015; Scraton 2009).
Thus it is possible to observe a shift
from
victim support organisations to be concerned with
just that – ensuring appropriate support for
people through difficult times and pressurising
for appropriate policy implementation to
complement such support – to having been
transformed, behind our backs (qua Beck 2015),
into an important conduit for seeing the world
through the prism of pain (Fassin 2012). It
is at
this juncture that it will be useful to turn to
the relevance of the second narrative to be
considered here:the trauma narrative.
The trauma narrative
As has already been intimated, the term ‘trauma’ carries
a number of different meanings, from
the medical to the psychological. Its development as
a psychic concept has its origins in the
work of Charcot in the 1860s. Differently
understood as either the result of an
external event
(Charcot’s understanding) or the result of an
internal psychic problem (Freud’s understanding),
it has gone on to be a term used as a
metaphor to capture the effects of anything
regarded as
17. unpleasant (Hacking 1995). The intention here is
not to document the extensive work done on
trauma and its uses but to offer a flavour of
the way in which it has been deployed in
the context
of criminal victimisation. Indeed it is through
the conduit of what Fassin and Rechtman (2009)
have called ‘psychiatric victimology’ that it is
possible to trace the presence of trauma in
the
sub‐discipline of victimology. This presence can be
found in a number of inter‐related and
inter‐
locking paths. One notable routehas been feminism.
Historically positivist victimology and feminism have
not sat easily with one another (see inter
alia Davies 2011; Rock1994; Walklate 2003).
One of the tensions between thesetwo frames of
reference lies within understanding the nature, extent
and impact of sexual violence on
women’s everyday lives. Nonetheless, when
Burgess and Holmstrom (1974) published
their
work evidencing a ‘rapetrauma syndrome’, it
was hugely important in challenging the notion
that ‘no harm was done’ by such violence.
The recognition of this syndrome afforded an
important impetus to the feminist movement in
their campaign at that time to secure the
recognition of the pain of sexual violence across
a range of different criminal justice
jurisdictions. The influence of what Rose (1998)
19. 2016 5(1)
Perhaps even more perturbing is the tendency to
declare the woman (or the man) in denial
should s/he counter the assignation of being
‘traumatised’ which, of course, ‘traumatised’
s/he
must be in order to be believed in terms of
a criminal justice response (see inter alia Brown
and
Horwath 2009). It is at this juncture that the
tensions between the power of a positivist
victimology and its implicit use of the term
‘victim’ as a uniform and unifying concept,
and the
individualised nature of trauma as actually lived
and experienced, are felt. It is at this
meeting
pointthat it is possible to discern the transference
of the trauma discourse to othercategories
of victimisation. In this regard Summerfield (1999:
1449) has observed:
One of the features of 20th century Western culture
– particularly in the last 50
years – has been the way medicine and psychology
have displaced religion as the
source of explanations for the vicissitudes of
life, and of the vocabulary of
distress.
The slippage in terminology between primary,
secondary, indirect victimisation commented on
20. above and the presence of the concept of trauma
in this slippage – albeit, to begin with,
used in
the context of rape – is one illustration of
this ‘vocabulary of distress.’ There is, however, a
second point of intersection in the
development of understandings of trauma in
the ‘psy’
disciplines and the use of this concept in the
context of criminal victimisation. This pointof
intersection lies in the recognition of
post‐traumatic stress disorder.
Chamberlin (2012: 362) comments that the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM‐III), published in 1980, brought
the category of post‐traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) into psychological and popular discourse. The
kinds of events that could result in
PTSD
included such experiences as being a victim of
violent assault, to being kidnapped, to
being a
victim of a terrorist attack or a natural
disaster. The recognition of this disorder meant
acceptance of the veracity of victims in
distress. The publication of DSM‐III coincided
with the
concerns of the (American) feminist movement
(qua Burgess and Holstrom’s 1974 work
referenced above) alongside the presence of the
(American) peace movement(Herman 1992).
Taken together this resulted in a ‘new era of
thinking about trauma’ (Fassin and Rechtman
21. 2009: 77). Thus ‘suffering is no longer
something that should be hidden from others or
concealed from oneself: it is somethingthat can be
legitimately described in others and oneself’
(Fassin 2012: 41‐42). To see the world
through the lens of pain, shared with others
and
recognised in these terms by others,
became legitimate. It will be of value to
explore the
presence of the peace movement, commented on
by Herman (1992) in a little more detail
since
hidden in here is another link with the
sub‐discipline of victimology and the rising
presence of
victims’ voices.
The peace movementcommented in by Herman
(1992) had as its focus the Vietnam War. In
particular, Alexander(2012) reminds us that the
‘Mai Lai Massacre’ of 1968 sent shock‐waves
around the United States. That massacre prompted
serious questions to be asked about not
only
how ordinary men could commit such awful
atrocities but also threw into doubt American
engagement with the war itself. The questions posed
by the behaviour of American soldiers in
Vietnam were not dissimilar to those posed by
the trial of Adolf Eichmann that also took places
in the 1960s. The international silence on the
discovery of the concentration camps during
23. Having invented the term victimology, Mendelsohn
(1976: 17) went on to include in his
definition of the victim those oppressed by ‘caste,
social class or political affiliation, up to
and
including genocide or war crimes’. The recognition of
PTSD assisted in putting the violence(s) of
war, not solely those perpetrated by soldiers,
squarely into the victimological frame.
Taken together theseprocesses not only contributed to
an understanding of the experience of
trauma as reflected in DSM‐III but also contributed
to the emergence of what Alexander(2012)
has called ‘cultural’ trauma. As a result
enhancing the voices of those impacted by
the ordinary
and everyday experiences of crime are the voices
the Holocaust, the veterans of war and their
victims, alongside those working within feminism.
During the 1980s and 1990s, thesevoices
were added to by those concerned about their
victimisation because of their race, ethnicity,
sexuality and identity. Indeed the ‘new wars’ of
the 1990s afforded another dimensionto the
voices of the traumatised. Moon (2009)
observes that during this time war torn societies
became constituted as traumatised collectivities in
need of therapeutic intervention (see also
Fassin 2012). Yet this embrace of trauma too is
not without its problems. Not only does it have
the potential to deny how individuals might
actually experience what has happened to them
(as
observed above in the context of sexual
24. violence), but it has also increasingly embedded a
conflation in terms of understanding what exactly is
being referenced: a traumatic event or
the
traumatic impact of an event (Eagle and
Kaminer 2014). These two problems are
suggestive of a
contemporary use of trauma as a uniform and
unifying concept: something that we can all
recognise and agree upon resonant of Alexander’s
(2012) use of the notion of cultural trauma.
Arguably this is an unintended consequence of
the way in which, in being combined with a
similarly undifferentiated use of the concept of
victim, it has contributed to the conflation
observed by Agamben (1999: 13) in the use of
testimony.
To summarise, the victim narrative, informed by
concepts emanatingprimarily from positivist
victimology, leant itselfeasily to identifying the
vulnerable (the elderly, the young, the frail,
and
so on) on whom it could be assumed that
victimisation would take its greatest toll. In
some
respects the trauma narrative challenged this. In
the trauma narrative even those least likely
considered vulnerable (soldiers for example) could
find themselves suffering as a result of
their
exposure to the violence(s) of war. Nonetheless
thesetwo narratives have become intertwined.
Indeed, in this intermeshing of victimhood and
25. trauma, it is possible to observe (qua Fassin
2012) the shift from pain as naturalistic (as given
by the data of criminal victimisation surveys)
to pain as ironic (as routine and a possibility
for all of us): hence we can all be seen to
be victims
now (Furedi 2002). Furthermore under the
influence of an increasingly mediated world it
is
possible to suggest that we are all ever more
vulnerable to being seen as victims through
indirect victimisation, or the trauma of witnessing,
as we are exposed to the constantlyand
perpetually available and unchanging images of
atrocity (Pollard 2011). In this melding of
victimhood and trauma both terms are used as
universal, unifying, and undifferentiated
categories. Yet it is also the case that individuals
recover from bad experiences and have the
capacity to deal with horrendous circumstances in a
myriad of different ways. Nevertheless
under conditions of what might be called
‘trauma creep’ these capacities remain
somewhat
hidden from view. It will be of value to
examine the characteristics of this trauma creep,
and its
manifestation within concerns about the victim of
crime, in a little more detail.
Trauma creep
The work of Alexander (2012) offers one
way in which to make sense of the
apparent
27. day. These include, the proliferation of the
criminal victimisation survey and its associated
findings documenting the pains of criminal
victimisation; the evidence generated by those
surveys of a relatively powerless victim
(gendered, aged, classed and racialised); the
proliferation of victim‐centred organisations making
claims on behalf of victims’ voices; and, in
the light of thesedata and the claims of these
organisations, the attribution of responsibility to
criminal justice practitioners in particular and systems
of justice more generally for the further
pain endured by victims of crime. The recognition
of rape trauma syndrome alongside the
slightly later acceptance of the veracity of the
victim’s voice in the acceptance of the
existence of
PTSD and the conflation of victimhood with trauma
is established. From this conjuncture it is
possible to observe the increasingly diverse
presence of voices claiming trauma as the
conceptual conduit for their recognition. Thus the
metamorphosis of the victim is complete. Yet,
is it? At this juncture it is worth considering
some less visible consequences of this trauma
creep.
First of all, and a pointwell made by Eagle
and Kaminer (2014), is the recognition that
being
distressed as a result of a life threatening
experience is a normal, psychologically
healthy
28. response rather than one that denotes a disorder.
As was intimated above, the capacity of
individuals and collectives to overcome even
the worst excesses of violence are well
documented. Trauma creep can silence this
capacity. In claiming the status of
‘traumatised’,
sometimes, of course, other things can follow,
like for example, in post‐conflict societies,
international aid. However the conflation of these
two processes can rest on two further
problematic assumptions both of which raise
fundamental questions about the actual lived
experiences of individuals. Put simply, trauma
creep in conflating the victim narrative with
the
trauma narrative embraces the failures inherent in
each of them in making sense of people’s
real lives. So the victim narrative fails because it
is rooted in data that aggregate individuals
into
groups. The latter does not necessarily reveal
anything about the former. The trauma
narrative
fails because of the same problem in reverse. It is
generated by in‐depth data/experiences of
individuals that are used to make claims
on behalf of groups. Hence the trauma creep,
increasingly endemic in victim’s voices, has the
capacity to do a disservice to both individuals
and collectivities at the same time.The question
remains, of course, as to why this matters.
This
returns us to the dilemma posed by Agamben
29. (1999) concerning the contemporary
appreciation of testimony and its relationship
with understandings of justice. This is the
problem of trauma‐driven policy and politics.
Trauma driven policy and politics
The import of claims of trauma, either in
popular terms (qua Laqueur 2010) or as a
master
narrative (quaAlexander2012), as clearly illustrated
in the example withwhich this paper
began, cannot be denied. In political and policy
arenas, whilst neither the victim narrative
nor
the trauma narrative necessarily provides the
evidential basis for action, both proceed as
though the opposite were the case. The response to
the death of Aylan Kurdi is a case in
point.
The interconnected nature of the events that
unfolded in the summer of 2015 – and that
continue to do so – more than illustrate the
inherent problems for politics and policy driven,
however justifiably, by the presence of trauma.
Perhaps more prosaically, in terms of
responding to individuals’ experiences,
trauma‐driven policies are problematic (as the
discussion above concerning rape trauma
syndrome implies) because, in order to be
considered
worthy of a policy or practice intervention, an
individual’s response to their experiences has to
be pathologised. This is rather contrary to
31. their pain. It is against the backcloth of this
politics of recognition that some‘victim’ voices
are listened to – and, indeed, become the
voices
and conduit for policy changes – and others
are not. In the shadows in between, what counts
as
justice, and for whom, can become compromised.
For example, in a recent analysis of the
relationship between victims’ rights and
neo‐liberalism
in the United States, Ginsberg (2014) has
observed a consonance between the two in their
shared denial of society. Rather like Garland
(2001), he uses the contemporary propensity to
name laws after individual victims (as opposed to
those who proposed them or wrote them) as
illustrative of this tendency. This propensity is, of
course, not peculiar to the United States.
The
same phenomenon can be observed in a range of
Westocentric jurisdictions, in which not only
are laws named after individual victims but such laws
also have the capacity to travel from one
jurisdiction to another. Clare’s Law (the domestic
violence disclosure scheme), adopted in
England and Wales in 2014 in the aftermath of
the murder of Clare Wood by her partner
in
2009 and in the face of a vociferous campaign
led by her father, was introduced in
Scotland in
32. 2015 and is under serious consideration in states
of Queensland and Victoria in Australia. This
is a good example of trauma‐driven policy
with a poor evidential base but simultaneously
pointing the finger of responsibility for preventing
her death in the direction of the police
rather
than wider society. The influence of such victim
voices in policy formation, oftenwith scant
regard for the wider implications for justice, is
not unusual. Individuals have been appointed as
government advisors on the basisof their experience
of victimisation as though their experience
stands for the experience of all victims. The
appointment of Sarah Payne (the voice behind
Sarah’s Law in England and Wales) as a
Victims’ Champion in the UK or the recognition
given to
Rosie Batty, a family violence campaigner
(whose 11 year old son was killed by his
father on
visiting a junior cricket match attended by
her and her son) as Australian of the Year in
2015,
are two good examples of the presence of such voices.
Indeed Schmidt (2014) documents the
persistence of someof thesevoices (in her case
study, the organisation Mothers Against Drunk
Drivers in the United States) even when the
demands of their cause have for all purposes
been
met. This leadsher to introduce the concept of
‘perpetual trauma’: a notion of trauma that
33. taps
into our deepest fears (like the loss of a loved
one) and thus demands constant action whilst
simultaneously ensuring ‘victims voices become
reshaped, packaged, commodified’ (McEvoy
and Jamieson 2007: 425) in a neatness of fit
with neo‐liberalism.
The presence and influence such voices are neither
simple nor straightforward: someinfluence
policy on the back of sound research and
evidence; the influence of others is not
necessarily so
well‐founded. Nonetheless, the nature of their trauma
notwithstanding, the influence that such
individuals and/or groups may assert on policy
and the subsequent delivery of justice are
highly
contingent on who hears thesevoices and under
what conditions. The reverse is also the case.
Not all voices get heard, let alone acted
upon. The ongoing denial of the Armenian
genocide by
Turkey might constitute a good case in point(Rafter
and Walklate 2012). Yet embedded in here
is, as Agamben (1999: 13) observed, a process in
which ‘policy has proceeded as if ‘“testis”
(the
testimony of a person as a third partyin a
trial or a law suit) can be conflated with
“superstes”
(a person who has lived through something
and can thereby bear witness to it)’. This is
captured in the title of a report recently
published in the UK by the Criminal Justice
Alliance:
35. 2014).
Some concluding thoughts
Fassin and Rechtman’s (2009) analysis points to
the ways in which the shift to viewing the
world through pain and responding to those in
pain through the lens of trauma is not only
silent
about the kinds of victimisation that Mendelsohn
(1976) so desired victimology to address
but
it also actually hides the structural realities that
constitute the environmental, political and
moral pre‐conditions that pre‐exist the pain of the
moment. Yet it is now self‐evident (qua Beck
2015) that victimhood and trauma have become
one and the same. Nonetheless it is
possible
and, indeed, desirable to add to Fassin and
Rechtman’s (2009) call for a moral
economy of
trauma, a more explicit call for a political
economy of trauma. Such a framework would
pose
important questions for not only the positivist
victimological use of the concept of victim,
the
conflation of this concept with the notion of
trauma, and a wide range of victim‐centred
organisations and individuals who claim to speak
for such victims, but, crucially, it would also
turn the spotlight on how criminal justice policy is
framed and developed in a wide range of
jurisdictions, particularly Westocentric ones. Only
then will it be possible to truly make sense
36. of
and respond to the tragedies of cases like Aylan
Kurdi. It is, however, a moot pointas to
whether
or not such questions will be heard.
Correspondence: Professor Sandra Walklate, Eleanor
Rathbone Chair of Sociology, Sociology,
Social Policy and Criminology, University of
Liverpool, BrownlowHill, Liverpool L697ZX United
Kingdom. Adjunct Professor, School of Justice,
Queensland University of Technology, 4
George
Street, Brisbane 4000 QLD, Australia. Email:
[email protected]
Acknowledgement: This paper is developed from
argument first articulated in McGarry and
Walklate (2015) and presented as a plenary at
the International Conference on Crime, Justice
and Democracy, July, 2015 and I am very grateful to
the organisersfor the opportunity to speak
at that event. I am also grateful to Ross
McGarry, Lizzie Cook and Will McGowan for
the
conversations we have had on theseand related issues.
The faults that remain are, as ever, my
own.
38. syndrome.American Journal of Psychiatry
131(9): 981‐986.
Brown J and Horvath M (2009) Do you believe
her? Is it real rape? In Horvath M and
Brown J
(eds)Rape: Challenging Contemporary Thinking:
325‐342. London: Routledge‐Willan.
Burkitt I (2005) Powerful emotions: Power,
government and opposition in the war on
terror.
Sociology 39(4): 679‐695. DOI:
10.1177/0038038505056027.
Chamberlin SE (2012) Emasculated by trauma: A
social history of post‐traumatic stress
disorder, stigma, and masculinity. Journal of
American Culture 35(4): 358‐365. DOI:
10.1111/jacc.12005.
Christie N (1986) The ideal victim. In Fattah
EA (ed.) From Crime Policy to Victim
Policy: 17‐30.
London: Tavistock.
Condry R (2007) Families Shamed. Cullompton,
Devon: Willan Publishing
Davies P (2011) Gender, Crime and
Victimisation. London: Sage.
Dekker S (2013) Second Victim. New York:
CRC Press.
Dunn P (2007) Matching service delivery to
need. In Walklate S (ed.) Handbook of Victims
and
Victimology: 255‐281. Cullompton, Devon: Willan
39. Publishing.
Eagle GT and Kaminer D (2015) Traumatic stress:
Established knowledge, current debates and
new horizons. South African Journal of Psychology
45(1): 22‐35. DOI:
10.1177/0081246314547124.
Fassin D (2012) Humanitarian Reason. Berkeley
and Los Angeles, California: University of
California Press.
Fassin D and Rechtman R (2009) Empire of
Trauma. Princeton:Princeton University Press.
Fattah E (2010) The evolution of a young,
promising discipline: Sixty years of
victimology, a
retrospective and prospective look.In Shoham SG,
Knepper P and Kett M (eds)International
Handbook of Victimology: 43‐94. Boca Raton,
Florida: CRC Press.
Furedi F (2002) Culture of Fear:Risk Taking
and the Morality of Low Expectation. London:
Cassell.
Garland D (2001) The Culture of Control. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Gavey N and Schmidt J (2011) Trauma of
rape discourse: A double‐edged template for
everyday
understandings of the impact of rape. Violence Against
Women 17(4): 433‐456. DOI
10.1177/1077801211404194.
40. Gekoski A, Adler JR and Gray JM (2013)
Interviewing women bereaved by homicide: Reports
of
secondary victimisation by the criminal justice system.
International Review of Victimology
19(3): 307‐329. DOI: 10.1177/0269758013494136.
Hacking I (1995) Rewriting the Soul. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Ginsberg R (2014) Mighty crime victims:
Victims’ rights and neoliberalism in the
American
conjuncture. Cultural Studies 28(5‐6): 911‐946. DOI:
00.1080/09502386.2014.886485.
Hagan J and Rymond‐Richmond W (2009) Dafur
and the Crime of Genocide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Herman J (1992) Trauma and Recovery: From
Domestic Abuse to Political Terror. London:
Pandora.
Hope T (2007) The social epidemiology of
crime victims. In Walklate S (ed.) Handbook on
Victims and Victimology: 62‐90. Collumpton, Devon:
Willan.
Howie L (2012) Witnesses to Terror. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Jacobson J, Hunter G and Kirby A (2015)
Structured Mayhem: Personal Experiences of
the Crown
Court. London: Criminal Justice Alliance.
42. Review of Books 32(13): 19‐23.
Lynch O and Argomaniz J (eds)(2015) Victims
of Terrorism: A Comparative and
Interdisciplinary
Study. London: Routledge.
McGarry R and Walklate S (2015) Victims:
Trauma, Testimony, Justice. London: Routledge.
Maguire M with Bennett T (1982) Burglary in a
Dwelling. London: Heineman.
McEvoy K and Jamieson R (2007) Conflict,
suffering and the promise of human rights. In
Downes D, Chinkin C and Gearty C (eds)Crime,
Conflict and Human Rights: Essays in Honour
of Stan Cohen: 422‐441. Cullompton: Willan
Publishing.
Mendelsohn B (1956) A new branch of
bio‐psychological science: La victimology. Revue
Internationale de Criminologie et de Police
Technique 2.
Mendelsohn B (1976) Victimology and
contemporary society’s trends. Victimology: An
International Journal 1(1): 8‐28.
Miers D (1978) Responses to Victimisation.
Abingdon: Professional Books.
Moon C (2009) Healing past violence: traumatic
assumptions and therapeutic interventions in
43. war and reconciliation. Journal of Human Rights
8(1): 71‐91. DOI:
10.1080/14754830902717726.
O’Connell M (2008) Victimology: A social
science in waiting? International Review of
Victimology
15(2): 91‐104. DOI: 10.1177/026975800801500202.
Pollard J (2011) Seen, seared and sealed:
Trauma and the visual presentation of
September 11.
Health, Risk & Society 13(1): 81‐101. DOI:
10.1080/13698575.2010.540647.
Rafter N and Walklate S (2012) Genocide and
the dynamics of victimisation: Some observations
on Armenia. European Journal of Criminology 9(3):
514‐526. DOI:
10.1177/1477370812450824.
RockP (1986) A View from the Shadows. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
RockP (1998) After Homicide.Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
RockP (2004) Constructing Victims’ Rights: The
Home Office, New Labour and Victims. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Rose N (1998) Inventing Ourselves: Psychology,
power and personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
45. Spencer D and Walklate S (eds)(2016, forthcoming)
Critical Victimology: Developments and
Interventions. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
Summerfield D (1999) A critique of seven
assumptions behind psychological trauma
programmes in war‐affected areas. Social Science
and Medicine 48: 1449‐1462. DOI:
10.1016/S0277‐9536(98)00450‐X.
Von Hentig H (1948) The Criminal and his Victim.
New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University
Press.
Ullstrom S, Sachs MA, Hansson J, Øvretveit J
and Brommels M (2014) Suffering in silence: a
qualitative study of second victims of adverse
events. BMJ Quality and Safety 23: 325‐331.
DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs‐2013‐002035.
Walklate S (2003) Can therebe a feminist
victimology? In Davies P, Francis P and
Jupp V (eds)
Victimisation: Theory, Research and Policy: 28‐45.
UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Walklate S (2007) Imagining the Victim of Crime.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Overall Comments:
Hi Khanh,
Overall you made a nice start with this version of your U07a1
46. assignment.
Please let me know if you have any questions about my
feedback.
You can reach me at marni.swain @capella.edu or 813-417-
0860.
Sincerely,
Dr. Marni Swain
COMPETENCY: Apply the laws and safety issues in the
workplace.
CRITERION: Describe the case.
DISTINGUISHED
PROFICIENT
BASIC
NON-PERFORMANCE
Proficient
Describes the case.
Faculty Comments:“
I would like to see you move beyond describing the case of
wrongful termination involving Jack In The Box to analyze the
case instead. Your analysis will need to be substantiated by
information from outside resources to support the points you
make.
”
CRITERION: Summarize the significant issues of the case.
DISTINGUISHED
PROFICIENT
BASIC
NON-PERFORMANCE
Proficient
Summarizes the significant issues of the case.
Faculty Comments:“
I would like to see you move beyond summarizing the
significant issues of the case to clearly evaluate the issues
involved in this case of wrongful termination, as it is not clear
what claims are made in this case by the former employee and
the employer. Your evaluation will need to be substantiated by
47. information from outside resources to support the points you
make.
”
CRITERION: Discuss the outcome.
DISTINGUISHED
PROFICIENT
BASIC
NON-PERFORMANCE
Proficient
Discusses the outcome.
Faculty Comments:“
I would like to see your content developed further to fully
analyze the outcome of this case because it is not clear based on
the information provided.
”
COMPETENCY: Create strategies for recovery from exposure
to liabilities.
CRITERION: Discuss the concept of at-will employment.
DISTINGUISHED
PROFICIENT
BASIC
NON-PERFORMANCE
Basic
Defines the concept of at-will employment.
Faculty Comments:“
I would like to see your content developed further to analyze
the concept of at-will employment, as this is only briefly
addressed in your work.
”
CRITERION: Describe how at-will employment affects
wrongful termination lawsuits.
DISTINGUISHED
PROFICIENT
BASIC
NON-PERFORMANCE
Basic
48. Describes incorrectly how at-will employment affects wrongful
termination lawsuits.
Faculty Comments:“
I would like to see your content developed further to address
this objective because it is unclear how at-will employment
affects wrongful termination suits based on the limited
information provided.
”
COMPETENCY: Communicate in a manner that is scholarly,
professional, and consistent with expectations for members of
the human resource profession.
CRITERION: Communicate in a manner that is scholarly,
professional, and consistent with expectations for members of
the human resource profession.
DISTINGUISHED
PROFICIENT
BASIC
NON-PERFORMANCE
Distinguished
Communicates in a manner that is scholarly and professional
that addresses the intended audience and is free of grammatical
and mechanical errors.
Faculty Comments:“
You successfully met the requirements for this objective.
”
Overall Comments:
Hi Khanh,
Overall you made a nice start with your U07a1 assignment.
Please let me know if you have any questions about my
feedback.
You can reach me at marni.swain @capella.edu or 813-417-
0860.
Sincerely,
Dr. Marni Swain
49. COMPETENCY: Apply the laws and safety issues in the
workplace.
CRITERION: Describe the case.
DISTINGUISHED
PROFICIENT
BASIC
NON-PERFORMANCE
Proficient
Describes the case.
Faculty Comments:“
I would like to see you move beyond describing the case of
wrongful termination involving Jack In The Box to analyze the
case instead. Your analysis will need to be substantiated by
information from outside resources to support the points you
make.
”
CRITERION: Summarize the significant issues of the case.
DISTINGUISHED
PROFICIENT
BASIC
NON-PERFORMANCE
Proficient
Summarizes the significant issues of the case.
Faculty Comments:“
I would like to see you move beyond summarizing the
significant issues of the case to clearly evaluate the issues
involved in this case of wrongful termination, as it is not clear
what claims are made in this case by the former employee and
the employer. Your evaluation will need to be substantiated by
information from outside resources to support the points you
make.
”
CRITERION: Discuss the outcome.
DISTINGUISHED
PROFICIENT
BASIC
50. NON-PERFORMANCE
Proficient
Discusses the outcome.
Faculty Comments:“
I would like to see your content developed further to fully
analyze the outcome of this case because it is not clear based on
the information provided.
”
COMPETENCY: Create strategies for recovery from exposure
to liabilities.
CRITERION: Discuss the concept of at-will employment.
DISTINGUISHED
PROFICIENT
BASIC
NON-PERFORMANCE
Non-Performance
Does not define the concept of at-will employment.
Faculty Comments:“
I would like to see your content developed further to address
this objective as it is currently missing from your work.
”
CRITERION: Describe how at-will employment affects
wrongful termination lawsuits.
DISTINGUISHED
PROFICIENT
BASIC
NON-PERFORMANCE
Non-Performance
Does not describe how at-will employment affects wrongful
termination lawsuits.
Faculty Comments:“
I would like to see your content developed further to address
this objective as it is currently missing from your work.
”
COMPETENCY: Communicate in a manner that is scholarly,
professional, and consistent with expectations for members of
51. the human resource profession.
CRITERION: Communicate in a manner that is scholarly,
professional, and consistent with expectations for members of
the human resource profession.
DISTINGUISHED
PROFICIENT
BASIC
NON-PERFORMANCE
Distinguished
Communicates in a manner that is scholarly and professional
that addresses the intended audience and is free of grammatical
and mechanical errors.
Faculty Comments:“
You successfully met the requirements for this objective.
Overview
Write a 2–3-page case description of a recent case in the news
related to wrongful termination. Describe the case, summarize
the primary issues that exist, and include an analysis of whether
this is a case of wrongful termination based on what you know
and what you have studied.
Wrongful termination occurs when employment is terminated
for illegal reasons or if company policy is violated when the
employee is fired. HR practitioners and members of
management need to be informed about how to properly handle
the termination process to ensure that the employee's rights are
not violated, and to ensure that the organization avoids a
potentially costly wrongful termination lawsuit.
By successfully completing this assessment, you will
demonstrate your proficiency in the following course
competencies and assessment criteria:
· Competency 3: Apply the laws and safety issues in the
workplace.
. Describe the case.
. Summarize the significant issues of the case.
52. . Discuss the outcome.
· Competency 5: Create strategies for recovery from exposure to
liabilities.
. Discuss the concept of at-will employment.
. Describe how at-will employment affects wrongful termination
lawsuits.
· Competency 6: Communicate in a manner that is scholarly,
professional, and consistent with expectations for members of
the human resource profession.
. Communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and
consistent with expectations for members of the human resource
profession.
Context
Generally, most employees are considered to be covered under
the contractual "employment at will" relationship (except those
covered by a collective bargaining agreement), which means an
employer can terminate employment at any time, for any reason.
However, wrongful termination can exist if discrimination is
involved in the termination decision or if public or company
policy is violated during the termination process.
During this assessment, you will explore topics related to
termination in the workplace. You will consider what is
permissible under the law as a rationale for termination and you
will consider termination as it relates to employment at will
versus contract relationships. You will also consider the impact
of employment at will and the effect it has on an employer's
liability for wrongful termination.
Suggested Resources
The following optional resources are provided to support you in
completing the assessment or to provide a helpful context. For
additional resources, refer to the Research Resources and
Supplemental Resources in the left navigation menu of your
courseroom.
Library Resources
The following e-books or articles from the Capella University
Library are linked directly in this course:
53. · Shen, F. X. (2013). Neuroscience, mental privacy, and the
law. Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy, 36(2), 653–713.
· Bagenstos, S. R. (2013). Employment law and social
equality. Michigan Law Review, 112(2), 225–273.
SHOW LESS
Course Library Guide
A Capella University library guide has been created specifically
for your use in this course. You are encouraged to refer to the
resources in the BUS-FP4044 – Legal Issues in Human Resource
Management Library Guide to help direct your research.
Internet Resources
Access the following resources by clicking the links provided.
Please note that URLs change frequently. Permissions for the
following links have been either granted or deemed appropriate
for educational use at the time of course publication.
· Society for Human Resource Management. (2014). Retrieved
from http://www.shrm.org
Bookstore Resources
The resources listed below are relevant to the topics and
assessments in this course and are not required. Unless noted
otherwise, these materials are available for purchase from
the Capella University Bookstore. When searching the
bookstore, be sure to look for the Course ID with the specific –
FP (FlexPath) course designation.
· Walsh, D. J. (2016). Employment law for human resource
practice (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage.
. Chapter 18, "Terminating Individual Employees."
Instructions
Use the Capella library and the Internet to find and research a
recent case in the news related to wrongful termination. Look
for a case that is specifically related to human resources. Try to
find the most recent instance of such a case.
Once you complete your research, write a 2–3-page case
description in which you complete the following:
· Describe the case.
· Summarize the significant issues of the case.
54. · Include a detailed discussion of the outcome. Analyze whether
this is a case of wrongful termination based on what you have
studied for this assessment.
Be sure to address the concept of at-will employment and why
or why not it is a factor in this case, along with your supporting
rationale.
Additional Requirements
· Written Communication: Written communication should be
free of errors that detract from the overall message.
· APA Formatting: Resources and citations should be formatted
according to current APA style and formatting guidelines.
· Font and Font Size: Times New Roman, 12 point, double-
spaced. Use Microsoft Word to complete the assessment.
· Length: A minimum of two pages, excluding title page and
reference page (150–300 words per question).
Wrongful Termination Scoring Guide
CRITERIA
NON-PERFORMANCE
BASIC
PROFICIENT
DISTINGUISHED
Describe the case.
Does not identify the case.
Identifies but does not describe the case.
Describes the case.
Analyzes the case.
Summarize the significant issues of the case.
Does not attempt to summarize the significant issues of the
case.
Lists situations related to the case.
Summarizes the significant issues of the case.
Evaluates the significant issues of the case.
Discuss the outcome.
55. Does not identify the outcome.
Identifies but does not discuss the outcome.
Discusses the outcome.
Analyzes the outcome.
Discuss the concept of at-will employment.
Does not define the concept of at-will employment.
Defines the concept of at-will employment.
Discusses the concept of at-will employment.
Analyzes the concept of at-will employment.
Describe how at-will employment affects wrongful termination
lawsuits.
Does not describe how at-will employment affects wrongful
termination lawsuits.
Describes incorrectly how at-will employment affects wrongful
termination lawsuits.
Describes how at-will employment affects wrongful termination
lawsuits.
Analyzes how at-will employment affects wrongful termination
lawsuits.
Communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and
consistent with expectations for members of the human resource
profession.
Does not communicate in a manner that is scholarly,
professional, and consistent with expectations for members of
the human resource profession.
Communicates in a manner that is professional for members of
the human resource profession, but manner is not scholarly as
there is inconsistency with grammar and mechanics.
Communicates in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and
consistent with expectations for members of the human resource
profession.
Communicates in a manner that is scholarly and professional
that addresses the intended audience and is free of grammatical
and mechanical errors.
56. Adler, Freda
CALLIE MARIE RENNISON
Contemporary criminology and criminal justice
bear the indelible mark of the research of Freda
Adler (1934 – ). While Adler’s research agenda
encompassed many important areas such as inter-
national crime, social control, and drug use, per-
haps her greatest contribution was to bring
attention to feminist theory. By doing so, Adler’s
contributions changed criminology by ushering
in a new and (at the time) controversial way of
viewing female deviants and offenders during a
time of great social change. This attention has
not waned as research on females as deviants and
offenders is an area of active research even today.
This entry presents an overview of Adler’s theoret-
ical contributions by first describing her profes-
sional background. Next, her feminist theoretical
contributions are introduced and described,
followed by a critique of this important work.
Freda Adler is frequently described as the most
distinguished female criminologist in the field
based on a lifetime of important contributions in
criminology and criminal justice. Adler’s career
began with her earning a BA in sociology, an
MA in criminology, and a PhD in sociology from
the University of Pennsylvania. Working under
the guidance of Marvin Wolfgang, Adler com-
pleted a dissertation on the disparity of sentenc-
ing between black and white females. She spent
almost her entire academic career on faculty at
Rutgers University. She started in 1974 as an
58. females. This included greater professional, edu-
cational, and economic opportunities for females.
At the same time, criminology and criminal
justice continued to be entrenched in its focus
on male behaviors and experiences. This was
no surprise as the discipline was dominated
by male researchers and students. In general,
research on delinquency and criminality focused
on males, and any findings were merely gener-
alized to females. When considered explicitly,
females were assumed to be simple creatures
guided by biological determinism. Deviant or
criminal females were considered pathological,
ill, and/or simply evil. No consideration was
given to the important role of social, economic,
rational choice, or a myriad of other influences
on legitimate or illegitimate female behavior.
Adler’s theoretical work departed drastically
from the predominant old-fashioned views of
females. She argued that as social and economic
conditions shifted during the second wave of
the feminist movement, more opportunities for
females became available. And the greater avai-
lability of opportunities led to an increase in
female criminality and deviance. As women
moved into positions previously unavailable
outside the home, they became subject to similar
temptations, pressures, challenges, and stresses
that only men had experienced in these envi-
ronments previously. With the increase in the
number of females in the workforce, Adler pre-
dicted an analogous rise in female offending and
criminality. That is, as females were afforded more
opportunities in previously male-dominated
59. 2 A D L E R, F R E D A
spheres, they would begin to think and behave
(including engaging in deviant and criminal
acts) like males. Adler argued that increased
opportunity for females leads to increased legal
opportunities; it also leads to an increase in
criminality for females.
To demonstrate support for her theory, Adler
used arrest statistics published by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI). These statistics
indicated that differences in levels of male and
female criminality decreased greatly as a result
of the second wave of female liberation began in
1960. According to Adler, FBI arrests statistics
demonstrate that arrest of females grew dramat-
ically in response to an increase in female labor
force participation. For example, from 1960 to
1972, arrests of female robbers grew 277%. Arrest
of female burglars increased 168%. And, over the
same period, a 280% increase in arrests of female
embezzlers was recorded by the FBI. Not only do
these values indicate substantial growth in arre-
sts, but they demonstrated that increases in
arrests of females greatly exceeded increases in
male arrest for the same offenses.
Additional work by Adler offered greater sup-
port for her theory. For example, research focus-
ing on female juvenile criminality offered similar
support. And work focusing on female criminal-
ity in other nations offered much the same. Thus,
comparative data from Germany, Japan, Norway,
60. and Poland (and other nations) indicated that the
increase in female offending and delinquency was
not restricted to the United States. And like the
findings from Sisters in crime, cross-national evi-
dence demonstrated that the increase in female
criminality exceeded their male counterparts over
a broad range of crimes.
Adler’s theory strongly rejected determinism
as the root cause of female behavior. Instead, this
work indicated that like males, females behave
rationally and that sociological, political, and
economic factors are important considerations
when examining criminal behavior. While sig-
nificant research, Alder argues that her theory
is not especially profound. Rather she describes
it as having benefitted from good timing. Tim-
ing or not, Adler’s work is in part responsible
for the remarkable growth of feminist theories
that have shaped criminological research and
continue to do so. Further, Adler’s work (with
others) helped to launch feminist empiricism and
unleashed several questions, which continue to
be addressed today. These questions include, but
are not limited to: Is there a new female criminal?
Does she commit more crime than she did in
the past? Does she commit different types of
crime than she once did? Is chivalry dead in the
criminal justice system?
Once published, Adler’s work was extremely
controversial. Some feminists were concerned
that Adler’s research would be used by antifemi-
nists to shuttle females back into the domain of
the home only. More scientific criticism was also
61. leveled at this work. One line of critique focused
on the use of percentage change to support the
theory. Given the low base numbers of arrests,
some argued the use of percentage change was
misleading. Specifically, percentage change statis-
tics based on low base numbers results in large
change statistics. For example, if arrests increase
from one to four in a given year, the resulting
percentage change is a 300% increase. If on the
other hand, arrests increase from 1000 to 1004,
the percentage change suggests a very different
outcome: 0.4% increase. Thus, though the change
in the number of arrests for each example is iden-
tical (a gain for 4 arrests), the resulting percentage
change, while accurate, paints a very different
story.
Some argued that a second problem with the
statistics used by Adler is that they may not accu-
rately reflect true levels of female or male crimi-
nality. That is, arrest statistics do not necessarily
accurately reflect the actual number of crimes
being committed. For example, robbery may
actually be increasing, but police may not be
making arrests for that crime due to a lack of
personnel or other resources. Or policies may
move attention to some other pressing issue (e.g.,
shoplifting) and other types of crimes are not as
heavily monitored. Finally, arrest statistics may
reflect a focus on a particular type of offender
(e.g., females, minorities, young) which directly
influences arrest statistics.
Some criticism stems from the possibility
that the relationship identified by Adler may
be spurious. In other words, the described rela-
62. tionship between female participation in the
workforce and increases in female criminality
may be due to some unidentified factor. This
unknown factor may lead to both increases
in female arrests/criminality as well as the
A D L E R, F R E D A 3
increased opportunities brought about by female
liberation.
Finally, the passage of time and use of vic-
timization surveys indicates little support for
Adler’s theory. Victimization surveys such as the
National Crime Victimization Survey provide
data that are not subject to the issues associated
with official police records. Work using victim-
ization data failed to demonstrate the type of con-
vergence in the gender gap for violent crimes
such as robbery and aggravated assault identified
by Alder’s work. No support was found across
types of crime and when controlling for offender’s
age, race, and gender. In general, no convergence
in the gender gap in offending was identified.
And, in the rare case convergence was noted, it
was to a decrease in male criminality and not
an increase in female criminality. In general,
research using victimization surveys finds no
evidence of “girls gone wild” and it demonstrates
that violent and property offending continue to
be a male-dominated activity.
While the passage of time offers little support
for Dr Adler’s theory, her contributions to the
63. discipline are significant. Her theory and research
moved the viewing of females as biologically
predetermined home-bound creatures to inde-
pendent humans influenced by the same external
forces acting upon males. And Adler’s research
brought forth an important focus on the role of
gender in the field of criminology. Adler’s work
is rightly viewed as the cornerstone research
establishing female deviance and offending as a
legitimate and important field of study.
SEE ALSO: Criminal Careers; Gender and
Crime; Gender-Based Violence.
References
Adler, F. (1975). Sisters in crime: The rise of the new
female criminal. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Further Readings
Adler, F. (1971). The female offender in Philadelphia.
Doctoral Dissertation, No. 72 – 6127. University of
Pennsylvania.
Adler, F. (1975). The rise of the female crook. Psychology
Today, 42, 46 – 47, 112, 114.
Adler, F. (1977). The interaction between women’s
emancipation and female criminality: A cross-
cultural perspective. International Journal of Crimi-
nology and Penology, 5, 101 – 112.
Adler, F. (1983). Nations not obsessed with crime. Little-
ton, CO: Fred B. Rothman & Co.
64. Adler, F. (1995). Synnomie to Anomie: A macrosocial
formulation. In F. Adler &
W. S. Laufer (Eds.), The legacy of anomie theory (pp.
271 – 283). London: Transaction Publishers.
Adler, F. (Ed.) (1981). The incidence of female criminal-
ity in the contemporary world. New York: New York
University Press.
Adler, F., & Simon, R. J. (Eds.) (1979). The criminology
of deviant women. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Continuing Gender and Crime
*
BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONSBefore the emergence of the
feminist perspective, women were largely invisible in
sociological research. When they were considered, the analysis
tended to see female crime as a special case which resulted from
characteristics linked to biology.
*
65. Biological TheoriesLombrosso and Ferrero (1895) stated that
biology tends to prevent women from becoming
criminals.Although women do have a deficient moral code, this
is neutralised by natural feminine characteristics.These include
piety, maternity, sexual coldness and an underdeveloped
intelligence.
*
Pollak (1950) & Moir & Jessel (1997)Pollak argued that due to
female biology women were good at hiding crimes.Women have
learned to lie to men, hiding pain and discomfort during periods
and fake interest and pleasure during sex.Moir & Jessel’s more
recent research supports the biological argument as they found
that a large percentage of women get away with charges of
violent crime due to PMS.
*
Sex – Role theoryTalcott Parsons (1937) stated that because
child rearing is done by mothers, girls have a clear role
model.They are likely to follow in their mother’s footsteps and
less likely to turn to crime.Heidensohn (1996) states that
informal social control discourages women from straying from
“decent” behavior.Females are controlled by their given role as
mother and wife and as they are bound to the home environment
66. they rarely have the opportunity to leave the home and commit
crime
*
Chivalry Thesis
Graham (1992) & Bowling (1995)This is the concept that
women are let off lightly by the criminal justice
system.Research based on self-report studies revealed that
gender differences in criminal behavior were not as great as the
differences in statistics.55% of males and 31% of females
admitted to committing offences.Similar results were found
within the Youth Lifestyle Survey (1998-9)11% of females
admitted to offending compared to 26% of malesThese figures
suggest that some difference in the likelihood of being
convicted between the genders
*
Chivalry Thesis
Ann Campbell (1981) stated that female suspects were more
likely than males to be cautioned rather than prosecuted.Hilary
Allen (1989) stated that men were much more likely to be given
prison sentences than women.Even in very serious cases,
(manslaughter) women were more able to avoid prison sentences
than men.
67. *
Rape TrialsCarol Smart (1989) states that rape trials “celebrate
male sexual need and female sexual capriciousness”To illustrate
this statement Smart quotes British judges;“It is well known
that women in particular.. are likely to be untruthful and invent
stories” Judge Sutcliffe (1976).Women who say no don’t always
mean no….if she doesn’t want it she only has to keep her legs
shut” Judge Wild (1982) .
*
Rape TrialsSandra Walklate (2001) “The female victim rather
than the male suspect ends up on trial.Rape trials continue to
see things from a male point of view and accepts without
question that men are unable to restrain their desires once
women have given them any indication they may be available
for sex.”
*
Double standards in the criminal justice
system?Heidensohn(1985) states that women are treated more
harshly when they deviate from social norms of female
68. sexualityEg. Promiscuous girls are more likely to be put into
care than boys who involve themselves in similar
behaviorCourts are also reluctant to imprison mothers with
young childrenAllen (1998-9) stated that men are more likely to
be fined and imprisoned partly because they are seen as less
central to the family
*
Pat Carlen (1997)“The majority of British women who go to
prison are less likely to be sentenced due to the seriousness of
their crimes and more according to the courts assessment of
them as wives, mothers and daughters
*
Gender and Crime
IntroductionCarol Smart put forward a number of reasons why
research on women and crime has been limited.Women tend to
commit fewer crimes than men, so female offenders are seen as
less of a problem for society.Most crimes committed by women
seem to be of a comparatively trivial nature
69. Introduction
And may therefore be considered unworthy of
research.Sociology and criminology have both tended to be
dominated by males. In the main they have been studied by men
and the studies have been about men.Traditional criminology is
motivated by a desire to control behaviour that is
Introduction
Regarded as problematic. Since women’s criminality has been
seen as much less problematic than men’s, it has received
correspondingly less attention.
The causes of female crime and deviance:There are three major
approaches to explaining the relationship between women and
offending:
Biological & Physiological explanations
Sex-role theory
Transgression
Biological explanations
This approach has been used by different writers to explain why
the overwhelming bulk of women do not offend and conversly
why a small minority do. It starts from the belief that women
are innately different from men, with a natural desire to be
caring and nurturing – both of which tend not to be values that
support crime. ‘Normal’ women are therefore less likely to
commit crime.
70. Biological explanations
On the other hand, some women writers such as Dalton (1964)
have claimed that hormonal or menstrual factors can influence
this minority of women to commit crime in certain
circumstances.
Physiological: Lombroso was primarily concerned with
comparing anatomical features of female criminals and non-
criminals.
Biological explanations
For example he reported data comparing brains and skulls, the
width of cheekbones, size of jaws and even the size of the
thighs of prostitutes and ‘normal women’.
His overall argument was that rather than being the cause of
female criminality, biology tends to prevent women from
becoming criminal.
Biological explanations
When writing about male crime, Lombroso had suggested that
criminals could be identified through the presence of ‘stigmata’
or physical abnormalities, such as having an extra nipple or toe.
Lombroso and Ferrero (1895 found few examples of such
abnormalities amongst female criminals. To them this meant
that most female offenders were not true, biological, criminals.
Sex-role theory
Sex-role theory argues that women are less likely to commit
crime than men because there are core elements of the female
role that limit their ability and opportunity to do so. There are a
71. number of different versions, all of which can fit quite
comfortably together. Socialization: according to this approach,
girls are socialised differently to boys.
Sex-role theory
The values that girls are brought up to hold are those that
simply do not lead to crime. Parsons (1937) argues for instance,
that the most child rearing is carried out by mothers, girls have
a clear role-model to follow that emphasises caring
support.Social Control: Females are less likely to commit crime
because of the closer levels of supervision that they are
subjected to at
Sex-role theory
At home in childhood. This control carries on throughout life,
with the role of women being more constrained than that of
males.
Lack of opportunities: in order to commit crime, a person needs
to have the opportunity to do so. The narrow range of roles that
women are allowed have consequently limits their opportunities
to commit crime, as they are more confined by their
socialisation and social control than men. The result of these
Sex-role theory
three influences on the lives of females, is to deflect them away
from offending and towards conformity.
TransgressionThis theory stems from the fact that feminist
72. sociologists as they felt that they were not really adequate
explanations for the differences between male and female
causes for offending.Carol Smart (1990) introduced the idea of
transgressive criminology. By this, Smart was suggesting that
criminology itself as a discipline was tied to male questions and
Transgression
Concerns and that it could never offer answers to feminist
questions.
Transgression in the feminist sense of the word is used to
describe going beyond the boundaries of criminology.
Transgression is a good example of postmodern influence in
sociology.
