Traditional victimology has not yet tapped the potential of radical criminology to assist in the explanation of social reactions to crime and crime victims. From the theoretical perspective of the radical framework it is possible to explore society's preference for truly innocent victims and the limited ability of the system to avenge them (i.e., through victim assistance programs). Other avenues of analysis from this perspective include the role of the victim in furthering the interests of police and prosecution agencies, as well as the interests of the media and capitalist business enterprises. A radical victimological approach can also be used to analyze the extended victimization of the offender's family by the criminal justice system.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bivens, Matt
. 1991. “England, Wales Crime Rates Increase; Victims Get Partial Blame.”San Bernardino Sun, March 28, sec. A, p. 12.
2.
Black, Donald
. 1983. “Crime as Social Control.”American Sociological Review48:34-45.
3.
Durkheim, Emile
. 1965. The Rules of the Sociological Method (S. A. Solovay and J. H. Mueller trans.). New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1895)
4.
Elias, Robert
. 1983. Victims of the System: Crime Victims and Compensation in American Politics and Criminal Justice. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
5.
Elias, Robert
. 1986. The Politics of Victimization. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
Finn, Peter
. n.d. “Victims.”Crime File Study Guide. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
7.
Finn, Peter
and Beverly Lee. 1988. Establishing and Expanding Victim-Witness Assistance Programs. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
8.
Friedrichs, David
. 1983. “Victimology: A Consideration of the Radical Critique.”Crime & Delinquency29:283-294.
9.
Geis, Gilbert
. 1990. “Crime Victims: Practices and Prospects.” Pp. 251-268 in Victims of Crime, edited by A. Lurigio, W. Skogan, and R. Davis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
Hoebel, E. Adamson
. 1954. The Law of Primitive Man. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
Iglehart, Richard
. 1990. “The Impact of Proposition 115—The Crime Victims Initiative.” Key-note Speech delivered to the Association of Criminal Justice Researchers, Claremont, CA, October.
12.
Karmen, Andrew
. 1984. “The Rediscovery of Crime Victims.” Pp. 5-21 in Order Under Law, 3rd ed., edited by R. Culbertson and R. Weisheit. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
13.
Karmen, Andrew
. 1990. Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole.
14.
Katz, Jack
. 1988. Seductions of Crime: The Moral and Sensual Attractions of Doing Evil. New York: Basic Books.
15.
Krisbreg, Barry
. 1975. Crime and Privilege. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
16.
Kuhn, Thomas S.
1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Miers, D.
1978. Responses to Victimization. Abington, England: Professional Books.
18.
Murphy, Jeffrie
. 1990. “Getting Even: The Role of the Victim.” Pp. 209-225 in Crime, Culpability, and Remedy, edited by E. F. Paul, F. Miller, and J. Paul. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
19.
Newman, Donald
. 1956. “Pleading Guilty for Considerations: A Study of Bargain Justice.”Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science46:780-790.
20.
Nikos, Karen
. 1991. “New Police Unit to Protect Victims of Obsessive People.”Los Angeles Daily News, February 16, sec. B, p. 7.
21.
Phipps, Alan
. 1986. “Radical Criminology and Criminal Victimization: Proposals for the Development of Theory and Intervention.” Pp. 97-117 in Confronting Crime, edited by R. Matthews and J. Young. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22.
Quinney, Richard
. 1972. “Who is the Victim?”Criminology10:314-323.
23.
Quinney, Richard
. 1974. Critique of Legal Order. Boston: Little, Brown.
24.
Schwendinger, Herman
and Julia Schwendinger. 1970. “Defenders of Order or Guardians of Human Rights?”Issues in Criminology7:72-81.
25.
Smith, Brent
. 1988. “Victims and Victims' Rights Activists: Attitudes Toward Criminal Justice Officials and Victim-Related Issues.”Criminal Justice Review13:21-27.
26.
Sudnow, David
. 1965. “Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in a Public Defender's Office.”Social Problems12:255-276.
27.
Taylor, Ian
, Paul Walton, and Jock Young. 1973. The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance. New York: Harper & Row.
28.
Umbreit, Mark
. 1989. “Crime Victims Seeking Fairness, Not Revenge: Toward Restorative Justice.”Federal Probation53:52-57.
29.
Villmoare, Edwin
and Jeanne Benvenuti. 1988. California Victims of Crime Handbook. Sacramento, CA: McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific.
30.
von Hentig, Hans
. 1948. The Criminal and His Victim. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
31.
Young, Jock
. 1986. “The Failure of Criminology: The Need for a Radical Realism.” In Confronting Crime, edited by R. Matthews and J. Young. London: Sage.
32.
Zatz, Marjorie
. 1989. “Chicano Youth Gangs and Crime: The Creation of a Moral Panic.”Contemporary Crises11:129-158.
33.
Zehr, Howard
and Mark Umbreit. 1982. “Victim Offender Reconciliation: An Incarceration Substitute.”Federal Probation46:63-68.
