Protocolo MIH

Developmental victimology identifies factors that influence youth victimisation risk and explores various difficulties that child victims face, which can provide valuable insight into their plight. Developmental victimology could be seen as a natural starting point for the study of youth victimisation. David Finkelhor, who is on the forefront of the advancement of the developmental victimology perspective, defines developmental victimology as “the study of victimisation across the changing phases of childhood and adolescence” (1995, p.178). He explains that all of the constant changes that occur during childhood can affect victimisation risk (Finkelhor, 1995). Developmental victimology is based on the notion that individual ideas and theories are not enough to successfully study such an all-encompassing field. In dealing with any developmental theory, it is important to address the common underlying basis. Developmental theorists within the realms of criminology are not in favour of accepting a single theory to explain victimisation, crime or delinquency and propose that several theories are needed in order to address the explanation of these events over the life course.

Finkelhor (1997) describes ‘developmental victimology’ as a framework that enables the victimisation of children to be studied across the span of childhood. In discussing what can be learned from child development, he states that:

Much theory in the field of child development can be applied to child victimisation. Even in its methodology, which has relied heavily on observational studies and longitudinal follow-up studies, victimology can learn valuable lessons (Finkelhor, 1995, p. 189).

During childhood, children experience many changes both within themselves and within their environment. For example, their bodies grow and become stronger, their mental capabilities expand, and their relationships and social environments often become more complex (Finkelhor, 1995). When one takes into account even these few examples, the importance of the developmental perspective becomes clear.

Children obviously continue to experience changes during adolescence, which is why an understanding of ‘developmental victimology’ is an integral part of the study of youth victimisation. It is also important to recognize the differences in victimisation experiences among children, according to age groups. These differences can indicate possible trends in future victimisation experiences, as well as variations in types of victimisations according to age. As Finkelhor and Dziuba-Leatherman (1994) explain:

….victimisations stemming from the dependent status of children should be most common among the most dependent, hence the youngest, children. A corollary is that as children grow older, their victimisation profile should more and more resemble that of adults (p. 178).

The dependent status of children is one of the factors that can increase victimisation risk. This increased risk could apply to children belonging to all age groups. For example, younger children are often more vulnerable to becoming victims of kidnappings. This vulnerability is due to their lack of ability to fight back, combined with their difficulty in identifying dangerous situations. On the other hand, older children are often more vulnerable to verbal and physical assaults. Older children’s vulnerability is affected by their inability to choose both who they associate with and

where they spend the majority of their time (Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994).

Young people spend most of their childhoods in school, making it difficult to avoid individuals that are responsible for their victimisation. Similarly, other factors are responsible for the development of criminal behaviour amongst youth. Truancy, conflict in the family, and parenting have all been identified as factors that influence the development of children, in particular, the development of adolescent delinquency and criminal behaviour (Farrington, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002; Farrington & West, 1993;

Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Graham & Bowling, 1995; Graham & Utting, 1996;

Loeber & Stouthhamer-Loeber, 1986; Piquero et al., 2003).

In addition to identifying the dependent status of young people as a factor that influences youth victimisation risk, and some of the factors that influence delinquency risk, it is also helpful to explore the various difficulties that child victims face. In their research into victims of crime, Morgan and Zedner (1992) have highlighted some of the difficulties child victims can face, including regular acts of minor violence which are not defined as criminal acts, higher rates of victimisation, and the status of victim having to be ‘earned’ before any action can be taken on the victim’s behalf. These difficulties, coupled with the fact that young people are often not in the position to deal with the aftermath of victimisation on their own, can result in the plight of the youth victim being even more difficult than that of their adult counterpart. This is in direct contrast to the findings of Garofalo et al. (1987) who concluded that “generally, victimisation of juveniles tends to be less serious than victimisation of adults…” (p.

336).

Other research has highlighted some of the difficulties in acquiring empirical evidence used to establish victimisation risk patterns. Finkelhor, Ormrod and Turner (2009)

have stated that the establishment of definitive empirical evidence to support victimisation risk patterns over the course of childhood is confounded by a number of problems, including: the fragmentation of the study of victimization into subtopics, the use of overly age-restrictive methodologies to asses victimisation patterns, and reporting and identification biases being commonplace amongst information sources used to determine developmental victimisation risk patterns. The fragmentation of the study of child and youth victimisation is particularly important to this study, as the ever-changing focus of subtopics in the area creates confusion whilst analysing data and leads to difficulties for comparative work. Studies are often investigating the same topics but their focus on a particular area such as child sexual abuse or bullying means that interesting findings can easily be overlooked.

Now that the first of the two traditions marking the emergence of victimology has been described, along with Developmental Victimology, this chapter will turn to the exploration of the second tradition, exploring the use of victim surveys in attempting to quantify hidden crime.