|Department of Law and Criminal Justice Studies |[pic] |
| | |
|ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET | |
|STUDENT NAME |Nkiruka-Rebecca Elliott |STUDENT No |ELL11053447 |
| |
|PROGRAMME |
|(highlight correct subjects) |
|MODULE NAME: | |
| |Victims and Victimology |
|MARKER’S NAME: |Rashid Aziz |
| |(If you are unsure who is marking the assignment insert the module leader’s name) |
| |
| | |
|TITLE OF ASSIGNMENT |‘To what extent can the race or ethnicity of an individual influence their experience of criminal victimisation? |
| |21st March 2014 |
|SUBMISSION DATE | |
| |(i.e. extension awarded / special needs or concessions form submitted etc) |
|ANY EXTRA INFORMATION | |
| | |
| |I have read the University’s procedures on plagiarism, available in the Departmental Handbook, and accessible on |
|PLAGIARISM STATEMENT |the University website. |
| | |
| |I certify that this is my own work, and does not contain plagiarised, copied or duplicated material. |
|DATE |21/03/2014 |STUDENT’S SIGNATURE | |
|Note that the information on this form should all fit onto ONE page |

To what extent can the race or ethnicity of an individual influence their experience of criminal victimisation?
4000 Words

Contrary to contemporary popular perceptions, the inextricable link in the public mind between ‘victims’ and ‘crime’ is a relatively new phenomenon (Dignan, 2004), however the concept of victims is not a new phenomenon. According to Karmen (1990) it is a concept that dates back to ancient cultures and civilisation with its meaning deriving from the exercise of sacrificing another individual’s life in order to satisfy a deity.
In the twenty-first Century, the word victim is now used in reference to a number of different individuals: victims of domestic violence, victims of workplace violence and victims of hate crime to name a few (Sgarzi & McDevitt, 2003). We not only recognise victims today but we are also, as a collective, more aware of the many differences in the ways individuals become victimised in our society (Sgarzi & McDevitt, 2003).
As stated by the United Nations Human Rights (1985) a ‘victim’ is defined as being a ‘person who…has suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws, including those proscribing criminal abuse of power.’ Therefore under this declaration an individual can be considered a victim whether or not the offender is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted.
Historically, victims of crime were often an afterthought within the Criminal Justice System (CJS), on occasion even being deemed a necessary evil - their role was merely for convenience in securing a conviction. The interaction they faced with the police was primarily to find out if they could identify a suspect, the prosecutors dealt with them only has trial witnesses and the courts frequently ignored them entirely. It was widely argued that the majority of the emphasis was placed on the offender, firstly by identifying and arresting then on punishment and rehabilitation, with scant concern about the impact of the crime on the victim (Sgarzi & McDevitt, 2003).
However, within the last decade, legislatures and agencies in partnership with the Criminal Justice System (CJS) have now begun to focus more attention to the victims of criminal behaviour. This shift in focus is the result of an increase in official crime rates, with the revelation of extensive hidden crime documented by crime surveys. In addition, to the increasingly growing public intolerance towards crime and social disorder combined with the recognition and politicisation by civil action groups of the problem of racist violence (Goodey, 2005).
Within Victimology there are three main theoretical perspectives that exist: Positivist; Radical and Critical and throughout this essay they will provide a framework in discussing to what extent ones race or ethnicity can influence their experience of criminal victimisation whilst demonstrating a critical understanding of the context of victimisation in terms of ones race or ethnicity.
When discussing ‘race’ we are often referring to the biological make-up of an individual, this divides people in to populations or groups on the basis of various physical characteristics, which are usually the result of their genetic ancestry (Diffen, 2011). Therefore, ‘ethnicity’ presumes shared cultural traits such as language, religion and beliefs (Diffen, 2011). However one could argue that as the definition of race relates to biology, scientifically speaking there is no real significant biological difference between human beings therefore, there should be no difference in how an individual experiences criminal victimisation. Despite this, as this essay will go on to discuss, we are aware that this is not the case.

Von Hentig’s (1948) pioneering study in to the victims of crime classified his participant’s as either: the young; the old; the female; the mentally defective; immigrants and minorities to name a few. He noted that minorities are affected by racial prejudice (Jerin & Moriarty, 2010), however up until fairly recently, typologies of victims of crime have rarely included race and ethnicity.
It is a widely acknowledged fact that individuals from ethnic minorities, in particular those from a Black, Mixed-Race or Asian background, are more at risk of being the victim of a crime than their white counterparts, this could be due to the increased fear of Islamaphobia and racial profiling (Marsh & Melville, 2009).
Statistics taken from the Ministry of Justice (2011) showed vast differences in the risks of crime between ethnic groups and, for homicides, in regards to the relationship between the victim and offender. The 2010/11 British Crime Survey (BCS) concluded there being a higher risk of being a victim of crime for adults of a Mixed-Race background in comparison to all other ethnic minorities, however all Black and minority ethnic groups had a higher risk than those from a White background. The only statistical reduction came from those from a white background being a victim of a personal crime. In addition to these findings, the 2009/10 British Crime Survey interviews with children showed that a greater proportion of children from Black and minority ethnic groups reported that they avoided travelling on buses, due to a fear of their safety (22%) and also avoided using a mobile phone in public either all or most of the time (30%), in comparison to their White counterparts (14% and 22% respectively). What these results indicate is that the reality of crime, and fear of crime is marginally higher than those from a Black and minority ethnic background in contrast to those from a White background.

Table 2.01: Trends in the percentage of adults who were victims once or more of a BCS personal crime by ethnicity, England and Wales 2006/07 to 2010/11
___________________________________________________________________________
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
___________________________________________________________________________
% Victimised once or more

ALL 6.6 6.1 6.3 5.7 5.9
White 6.5 6.1 6.2 5.7 5.6
Non-White 8.0 6.0 7.0 5.6 7.5
Mixed 15.7 8.2 13.2 9.1 10.8
Asian/ Asian British 6.6 5.3 6.5 4.0 7.0
Black/ Black British 9.6 7.0 6.8 6.9 6.9
Chinese or other 6.2 5.5 6.2 7.2 8.5
___________________________________________________________________________
Unweighted bases
ALL 47,138 46,903 46,220 44,559 46,754
___________________________________________________________________________Source: British Crime Survey
As not all crimes are reported to the police for numerous reasons, the main source of information about the risks of victimisation for different ethnic groups is from the British Crime Survey, this provides greater insight in to the extent that ones race or ethnicity can have an affect on their criminal victimisation due to the fact that the main police recorded crime dataset for England and Wales does not currently include information about a victims ethnicity (Ministry of Justice, 2011). Responses from the 2010/11 BCS as shown in Table 2.01, show that just fewer than 6% of adults were victims of personal crime – with the difference between ethnic groups and White’s only being 2%. The highest proportion of victimisation involving personal crime was reported by the Mixed-ethnic group (11%), followed by Chinese or Other (9%), Asian (7%) and Black (7%)
The Ministry of Justice (2011) suggests that it should be noted however, that differences in the risk of victimisation between ethnic groups might be partly attributable to factors other than ethnicity. For example, previous research (Jansson, 2006; Salisbury and Upson, 2004) has shown that people with a Mixed ethnic background are most at risk of crime. Recent multivariate analysis of the BCS – where the relative contribution of a number of different factors are examined – suggested that ethnicity was independently associated with the risk of violence, although it was less important than other factors such as age, sex and marital status (Flatley et al., 2010).
According to a Home Office (2006) report in to black and minority ethnic groups’ experiences and perceptions of crime, racially motivated crime and the police found that the risk of victimisation, i.e. prevalence rates, taken from the 2004/5 British Crime Survey indicate the proportion of people or households that have been victims of crime once or more in the 12 month period prior to their interview.
However, they do not take into account repeat victimisation (people/households who had been victims of that particular type of offence more than once). It should be noted that the BCS only collects information on repeat victimisation during the 12 month period prior to the interview, so it excludes repeat victimisation over longer periods. Overall rates of repeat victimisation were similar across the Black and minority ethnic groups and White populations. The exception was that a lower proportion of adults/households from Black ethnic groups had been repeat victims (all household, personal and BCS crimes) in comparison with the White population.

Within England and Wales, it is evident that there is a difference in the way in which Black and Asian’s are treated in comparison to White people.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC, 2012) discovered that in some areas, Black people were 29 times more likely to be stopped and searched and overall they were six times more likely than White people to be stopped, and those from an Asian background being twice as likely.
Despite this, Gilroy (1982) and Hall (1979) reject the view that statistics reflect the true reality. They both argue that they are the outcome of a social construction process in which those of an ethnic minority background are stereotyped as being more criminal than the majority of the population. Gilroy goes on to suggest that the notion of ‘black criminality’ us a myth stemming from the racist stereotypes of African’s, Caribbean’s and Asian’s when in reality, these ethnic groups are no more criminal than their white counterparts. It is widely argued that by the Criminal Justice System acting on these stereotypes, the minorities in our communities are criminalised and further marginalised and therefore appear in higher numbers in the official crime statistics produced.

Nonetheless, through these findings brings bouts of questionability. One of those being why do those from an ethnic minority have a different experience of criminal victimisation than others?
One possible explanation for this could be a result of Christie’s (1986) theory of being an ‘ideal victim’, or in this instance the lack of it. Christie perceptively identified six attributes that, at the level of social policy, are most likely to result in the conferring of complete, legitimate and unambiguous victim status on someone who has had a crime committed against them (Dignan, 2004). Characteristics defined relate to the ‘victim’ being weak in comparison to the offender, such as being female or very old or young; the victim is, if not acting virtuously, then at least going about their legitimate, ordinary everyday business and also the victim being blameless, the victim is unrelated to and does not know the ‘stranger’ who has committed the offence, the offender is unambiguously big and bad and lastly the victim has the right combination of power, influence or sympathy to successfully elicit victim status without threatening strong countervailing vested interests (Dignan, 2004). By these assumptions at to what makes the ‘ideal victim’, it can be argued that this provides assistance in generating criteria by which those in the media assess the ‘newsworthiness’ of specific crime stories (Dignan, 2004).
From a positivist perspective, which is influenced by the view that crime along with all other natural and social phenomena is caused by factors and processes, the notion is conceived on the possibility that certain victims might in some way contribute to their own victimisation. However when put in to context with ones race or ethnicity, can an individual be held accountable for their own victimisation based on their race or ethnicity, which they can’t change?
Nonetheless, through this, a hierarchy of victimisation is created which represents the differential status of particular typologies and categories of crime victim in the media and official discourses, including ideal victims at the top of the hierarchy, and those non-deserving victims placed at the bottom. It has been suggested by Davies, Francis & Greer (2007) that those from a different race or ethnic minority will never acquire legitimate victim status, or will be deemed as undeserving victims due to them not meeting the requirements of the ‘ideal victim’. This theory has been proven on numerous occasions through high profile and non high-profile cases reported in the media throughout time.
In a prolonged attack on the media’s news values, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair (2006) accused the media of ‘institutional racism’ for regularly relegating the murders of individuals from an ethnic minority to ‘a paragraph on page 97’. He argued that the press were guilty of devoting the vast majority of their column inches to the deaths of white, middle-class victims in comparison to those from an ethnic background (Gibson & Dodd, 2006). He went on to clarify that the police devote the same level of resources to murders in relation to their difficulty but there is a vast difference in how they are reported. The example he used to highlight his grievance were the 2006 same day murders of the White 31-year-old Rhys Price and a 54-year old Asian father of two, Balbir Matharu (Gibson & Dodd, 2006), stating that murders of those from an ethnic background generate nowhere near as much interest.
When analysing the national news coverage of both murders, the gravity of differences that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner suggested was not as great, with the murder of Rhys Price generating 5,525 words in comparison to Balbir Matharu’s 4,443 words of coverage (Gibson & Dodd, 2006). However there is a stark contrast in the analysis of tabloid newspapers, with the murder of Rhys Price mentioned on 98 separate stories compared to Mr Matharu, whose death was only covered on a mere 14 occasions (Gibson & Dodd, 2006).
This however is just one example as to how an individual’s race or ethnicity can influence their experience of criminal victimisation.

One of the most controversial issues surrounding an individual’s experience of criminal victimisation boils down to racial profiling or racial stereotyping, as it’s more commonly known in the United Kingdom. Though this practice would not be admitted by any agencies of social control, there is a general consensus that it exists and is practiced by these agencies. The term is commonly understood as the practice of targeting or stopping an individual primarily on the basis of that person’s race (Farrell & Ramirez, 2003).
Nonetheless, the perceptions of individuals that they are stopped, searched and harassed by the police on the basis of their race is not only a complex, but a multifaceted problem, as despite the fact that the majority of police officers are honourable, honest and hard-working individuals, the perception that some may use racial profiling has created a deep distrust of the police in many communities (Farrell & Ramirez, 2003).
This distrust stems from a long and on-going history of adversarial relations between the police and communities of colour. From efforts in preventing black voters from registering in the southern states of America; the ‘Zoot Suit’ riots between police and navy personnel and Hispanics in Los Angeles in 1943; to the videotaping and beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers. These events have reinforced fears that police officers victimise those from a minority background (Farrell & Ramirez, 2003).
This notion of police officers victimising those from an ethnic background became significantly apparent in the United Kingdom with the April 1993 racist murder of 18 year-old black male Stephen Lawrence. Four years on from his murder, a unanimous verdict was given that “Stephen Lawrence was unlawfully killed in a completely unprovoked racist attack by five white youths” (Macpherson, 1999). The report later conducted concluded that there was a series of fundamental flaws in the conduct of the investigation by the London Metropolitan Police due to “professional incompetence, institutional racism and a failure of leadership by senior officers” (Macpherson, 1999). It became apparent that due to Stephen Lawrence’s, and his friend present at the time, Duwayne Brooks’ (who was wrongly assumed to be one of the protagonists in a fight between youths rather than the victim of an unprovoked attack due to racist stereotyping) race and ethnic background they were the victims of not only a murder but also of criminal victimisation, both not deemed worthy enough of legitimate victim status.

The inquiry in to the Stephen Lawrence murder addressed the notion that Black and Asian communities in the United Kingdom were, according to Phillips (2010), targeted for not only everyday but also politically orchestrated racist violence and as a result of having to endure experiences of being under attack it had fundamentally affected how members of those ethnic minority communities thought, felt and acted. The inquiry also demonstrated that racist violence undermines the sense of security felt as well as their actual safety within where they have chosen to call home (Phillips, 2010).
As stated by Bowling (1998) the Lawrence inquiry shone the light on evidence that the police are ‘racism-blind’ or have a world-view which favours racist offenders over Black and Asian communities. As a result, it demonstrated the failure to meet the requirement to do justice, be fair and ensure community safety.
In relation to ones race or ethnicity influencing their experience of criminal victimisation, the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence demonstrated the emptiness of the claim that the police and Criminal Justice System offer equal protection irrespective of race or ethnic origin, as Home Secretary at the time Jack Straw noting that it had “opened our eyes to what it is to be black or Asian in Britain today” (Phillips, 2010).
Despite these findings Davies, Francis and Greer (2007) give way to the claim that the main reason for the sudden media interest in to the murders of Stephen Lawrence and also ten year-old Damilola Taylor was not due to the abhorrence of such criminality, but due to the severe level of police corruption and institutional failings occurring the first place, denouncing both status’ as legitimate victims. This is in stark contrast to the widely reported coverage and biggest ever manhunt in Britain in to the disappearance and later murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002, which dominated all news outlets throughout August 2002. What this again shows it that depending on your ethnic background and race, your experience of criminal victimisation will vary.