The majority of people in society are adult and able-bodied, and when we
think about people becoming victims of crime we tend to assume an
adult, able-bodied victim. (Even the little old lady Christie presented
as the archetypal "ideal victim" is living a fairly active life.) People
who aren't adult and able-bodied seem to drop out of the picture when
we're thinking about victims - just as they do, arguably, in a lot of
other contexts.
The way we overlook old people and children has two main consequences.
Firstly, it means that we overlook the types of crime which those groups
are particularly likely to experience. Adults may feel intimidated by
fifteen-year-old hoodies, but what age-group is most likely to suffer
actual crime at the hands of a fifteen-year-old - to be robbed or
harassed or beaten up for looking weird? I'll tell you now, it's not
adults. Crimes committed by children against children are a
real dark figure, and they're a major factor in lots of kids' lives.
Elder abuse is another example: it's a crime that is not so much hidden
as completely invisible, except when a particularly scandalous example
comes to light.
Secondly - and I think even more importantly - we don't tend to see old people
or children as people in their own right, who are affected by becoming
victims of crime in the same way that we would be. We may be very kind
and caring in the way that we interact with them, we may be selflessly
dedicated to protecting and looking after them, but we don't usually
think they should have a say in what happens to them - or what's done
about it when something bad happens to them.
In this sense, the way that we think about old people and children is an
example of a much broader issue, which is central to contemporary
victimology. This is the question of who counts - who matters in
society, who has rights which are violated by crime. Classical
victimology drew a line that excluded lots of scruffy, disreputable,
unbalanced people, and ended up drawing the category of deserving
victims very narrowly indeed. Feminist victimology came on to the scene
saying that women count: women have rights which are violated by crime,
and by lots of other forms of unjust male power (including within the
criminal justice system). Radical victimology, in its different forms,
asserts the rights of other groups which have historically been pushed
to the margins. All of these ways of looking at victims say that this group counts, and members of this group should be able to say when they think they've been a victim, when they think their rights have been violated.
Is there a strand of radical victimology for children, or for old
people? Is anyone out there saying that a boy being beaten up for his
dinner money is just as bad as a man being mugged, or that an old woman
being taunted and slapped by her daughter-in-law is just as bad as a
prisoner being brutalised by prison warders?
If not, do you think there ever will be?
Why, or why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment