The Viano Model for journalistic mistreatment of crime victims is used throughout this post. Ernesto and Quincy stories are closely examined.

Ernesto Story

The child victim portrayed in this news clip was shown multiple times.  This directly violates the child’s sense of privacy and is associated with the ignoring the victims’ and survivors’ wishes regarding how and when they wish to deal with the media.

Ernesto was in the hospital and the media took numerous photos of him in his most dire times.  Chasing victims and survivors into hospital rooms, police stations, etc.

Interviewing victims and/or survivors at inappropriate times. The mother of Ernesto was attacked on the street by the mob of media.  This infraction can also relate to ignoring the victims’ and survivors’ wishes regarding how and when they wish to deal with the media. The latter is truer from the perspective of the female family relative who was asked obtrusive questions by the media as she was pleading to “leave things alone.”

Another thing to consider is the printing the victims’ names and addresses, particularly when the offenders are still at large. Although the situation seemed like it was within the family circle, the taping of the child’s residence and divulging of other personal information was inappropriate.

Lastly, inappropriately delving into the victim’s past is a horrible way to put out the news, mainly considering that it is a child the media is speaking of.

Quincy Story

One of the most shocking things I saw was the filming, photographing, and prominently broadcasting and pointing scenes with bodies and body bags. The newscaster was more explicit than the images that were aired, saying something along the lines of: the body [of the victim] is supposedly behind me. That is just getting to the point of inhumane behavior.  But as inhumane as it may seem the media giants know that this is just the stuff television is made of.

The nerve the media had to be virtually within the crime scene; without respect for the police and the investigators that were working the scene.  Interfering with police investigations seemed evident on the part of the media.

Publicizing victimizations prior to notification of the victims’ families was a “low blow” and very unprofessional by the media.  There was a big possibility that the next of kin was not notified by the authorities just yet.

Printing the victims’ names and addresses, particularly when the offenders are still at large. Although the exact address was not revealed, the media revealed the proximity of the crime down to a neighborhood and specifically the Quincy Shore driveway home.  For the perpetrators this means an added edge over the authorities, as this information along with the obtrusiveness and possible crime contamination is all they need to get away based on the media portrayal of the situation.

Something else that caught my eye was the improper choosing [of] unflattering or inaccurate terms to describe victims, often sensationalizing the event and searching for and stressing the “negative” about victims. All this while inappropriately delving into the victim’s past. These negative subject matters were related to the possible criminal past of the victim.  All three of these approaches are strategically used by the media in order to sensationalize the story and provide superfluous information that the viewer will buy into.  This is based on different psychological cues like the concept of “criminal killed by other criminals” or the thrill of a murder scene in their city, amongst others.

Both stories present the media’s cruel ways of presenting the story.  In these newscasts, even the most engaged or ignorant viewer can feel, see, or hear that the media is sensationalizing both events, and that some, if not all practices, shown by the media are somewhat debilitating and unwarranted in relation to the victim, victim’s family, or the witnesses of a crime.

Reference

LeClair, D. (2007). What is victimology; The Viano Model for journalistic mistreatment of crime victims. Retrieved September 8, 2007, from Boston University, Vista Online Website: http://vista.bu.edu/webct/

What would be some of the reasons that profiles of typically high-risk crime victims so closely resemble profiles of crime perpetrators?

Some of the reasons that profiles of typically high-risk crime victims so closely resemble profiles of crime perpetrators have lots to do with the environment.  Every person has been brought up in and now spends time in some type of environment.  The concept of the environment is quite broad, hence, I will try to explain it the best I can.

When someone gets victimized in the high-risk bracket (murder, robbery, etc.) it is often because of the environment that has brought them up.  Parents for example can have a tremendous influence on how their child develops.  Karr-Morse & Wiley (2000) show this concept quite well by delivering scientific proof within their literary piece titled: Tracing the Roots of Violence.  Perhaps part of how juveniles become offenders is determined by their sensory experience in their beginning days, months, and years, which according to the aforementioned authors,

“is essential to teach developing brain cells their jobs and that there is a short and early critical period for connecting the retina to the visual cortex this, beyond which the opportunity is forever lost” (pg.37).

In layman’s terms it is the what you experience is what you become approach. Moreover, the first 2 to 3 years are critical in the development of a child.  This is when the child’s brain rapidly develops and needs positive experiences to learn positive behavior.

Lack of proper care leaves kids being born into a bad home, hence more prone to violent and criminal behavior down the line (Karr-Morse & Wiley, 2000).  Do these kids have a choice to commit a crime? They sure do, however the inability to distinguish right from wrong is often more than the choice itself, but rather a complex physiological and psychological state of uncertainty which can be driven by sheer impulse (Karr-Morse & Wiley, 2000).

What happens here is that the profile of a high-risk victim becomes quite similar to the one of the victimizer, i.e.

abused child who grows up to be a gang member; who in turn robs people and does gang initiations, which involve the murder of an innocent bystander, or who grows up to be an abusive father or mother and continues the trend of bringing up children; the same way he/she has been brought up.

In this example the plight of the adolescent victim became his own fear, hence it became something he or she would have to overcome, or become the aggressor of, so the fear can subside.

The present environment has lots to do with the two profiles being quite similar.  A person living in a rundown, crime ridden neighborhood is in a high-risk category for crime being committed against them by their neighbor, kids from the street corner, and so on.  The need for survival (for example) may be a common bond between the victim and the perpetrator, however the  victim gets her money through hard work and a sense of responsibility, but the perpetrator, involved in illicit activities (often involving drugs, theft, robbery, carjacking, etc.), gets the money by putting a loaded gun to the victim’s head.  That is the environment issue that is so ever-present.

In all, many issues are the focus of the environment.  Where you live (geographically/demographically), who you “hang” with, your financial success or lack of, how you have been raised, and other factors heavily contribute to the environment that is you.

Resource

Karr-Morse, R. & Wiley, M. S. (2000). Tracing the roots of violence. In R. Weisheit & R. Culbertson (Eds.), Juvenile Delinquency: A Justice Perspective (pp. 35-54). Illinois: Waveland Press.

Victimology is a very interesting field of study, still with many uncharted territories (LeClair, 2007).  It is the scientific study of the physical, emotional, and other harm which victims suffer because of crime.  Victimologists are people who are in essence investigators, researchers, and observers of the victimized persons and their connection to the crime (Karmen, 2007).  As the study of victims constantly tries to broaden so do the ideologies (tendencies) related to Victimology.  Although my ideological preference would be the infusion of the three ideological tendencies – conservative, liberal, and radical – there are pros and cons that must be carefully evaluated first.

The conservative tendency is by far the bulk of what should be expected of each citizen, by my standards anyway.  This ideology focuses mainly on street level crimes (murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc.) and implies that we are all personally responsible for ourselves and we must attempt to prevent, avoid, and recover from criminal acts.  This heavily ties into the individual being responsible for defending themselves, their families, and their livelihood to every extent possible (LeClair, 2007).  The pro of this approach is that the responsibility for one’s actions is their alone. Not surprisingly, this is also the con of conservative tendency.  In the perfect world a person would not place themselves in dangerous situations: like taking midnight walks in a crime ridden neighborhood, or stopping for directions in the middle of gang territory. Although the propensity for victimization in a nicer neighborhood is much less, it is also less likely that someone taking midnight walks in the suburbs, or asking for directions Downtown Beverly Hills, is going to be placing oneself in a risky situation.  This ideology may cover many great points in order to prevent the onset of crime, but it doesn’t focus on people that have a slower learning curve of the worldly issues.  Kids, elderly, mentally ill, and people with disabilities would tremendously be hurt by the conservative ideology.  These groups are more prone to victimization within the conservative circle of thought.

Thus, the liberal ideology should come into play.  However, as the name implies the liberal tendency is just too liberal.  The liberal tendency focuses on street crime and extends its scope to cover white-collar crimes.  According to LeClair (2007)

the victimologist influenced by the liberal tradition also argues that governments should be more supportive of the needs of crime victims and, in that process, they should be providing a safety net system of services, in much the same way as we do for victims of poverty, sickness, and mental illness.”

This argument places the ultimate responsibility on the government and not the individual (LeClair, 2007).  Therefore, it is evident that many people would be almost intentionally careless and not responsible for themselves.  For example, this is evident in the state of Illinois, where the public assistance programs for the poor are being taken advantage off by the “better-off” and “well-to-do”.  This sense of “protection” is nebulous and expensive.  Instituting such an ideology to its fullest extent would not only be costly, but also would prove that it is okay for one to put their responsibilities off on another entity (the government); a debilitating tendency at its helm.  Essentially, the pro of this liberal approach is the help provided to victims who are unable to adhere to the conservative tendency due to their age or disability.

The radical tendency, which covers both the conservative and liberal tendencies, goes a step further by extending its study to victims of nearly everything, from: worldly pollution and ozone layer problems to religious, racial or ethnic bias, even to equal distribution of wealth within and between countries (LeClair, 2007).  This radical theory may add tremendous insight into the world of Victimology, but due to its broad spectrum it is too frivolous and not widely excepted.  In my opinion, the radical tendency totally seems to displace the notion of self-responsibility, thus further propagating the feeling that one is constantly hurt by: pollution, republicans, government, police, discrimination, and etc.  I can understand that dangerous workplace issues and fraudulent actions may be detrimental, and that many people can be victimized by one person or an organization, but the propagation of such an ideology will not only show the citizenry that accountability is not essential.  This type of ideology seems to promote the mindset that crime is happening at every venue before the real crime happens.

Victimology is a very peculiar filed and very much based on philosophical research and perspectives.  The ideologies discussed have very much to offer, but I feel that the conservative ideology, with a dab of liberal and radical ideologies, would be suited best for keeping victimization in line with responsibility and accountablity in place.

Resources

Karmen, A. (2007). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
LeClair, D. (2007). What is victimology. Retrieved September 5, 2007, from Boston University, Vista Online Website: http://vista.bu.edu/webct/

This academic write-up is a part of a Victimology discussion assignment on themes, patterns, victim portrayal and the media. Predetermined news clips of victim portrayal were used for the purposes of completing this assignment.

What specific themes can you derive from these TV news clips? How are the victims portrayed? What are their characteristics? How do the media reinforce these images and perceptions? Do these characteristics support the patterns that we discern from the official crime statistics referenced in the text?

The Ernesto Story

Themes

The Ernesto story depicts the young boy as a victim.  He would nearly qualify as a high-risk victim based on our readings and the course lectures.  Ernesto is a Hispanic male and he lives in poverty.  The only factor that would not qualify him as a high-risk victim in the themed presentation is the fact that Ernesto is of a very young age (Karmen, 2007; LeClair, 2007).

Victim Portrayal

Ernesto is portrayed as an innocent child victim, who presumably, at the hands of his own mother, received a very painful punishment that sent him to the hospital.

Media Reinforcement of Portrayal

Ernesto is portrayed as an innocent child victim who has been punished for presumably being a “naughty” kid.  Throughout the report, you could see images of Ernesto in a hospital room with bandaged body parts and life-saving apparatus hooked up to him.  Then the report proceeded to show the ransacked apartment, where the boy lived with his accused mother.  Verbal statements have been given about the boy and his other siblings living in horrendous conditions.  In my opinion, the media invalidated the mother’s statements and condemned before the legal trial.

Patterns

The events that were reported put Ernesto (the victim) within the realm of official statistics.  Amidst his young age (a disqualifier), he still remains a minority of a Hispanic descent.  Moreover, he is portrayed to have an impoverished lifestyle in an urban setting, and since he has been presumably victimized by his mother (a family member), that further shows the validity of the pattern presented (Karmen, 2007).

The Quincy Story

Themes

Based on an unconfirmed report by the media, the victim was at one point a victimizer; armed robber.  If this is true, the fact that he was a white male, within his 30s, and with a prior criminal record validates the reference Karmen (2007) makes in the course text: “most perpetrators and many of their victims had been in trouble with the law before their final showdown” and that “about 45 percent of the deceased turned out to have criminal records (arrests or convictions for misdemeanors or felonies)” (p. 89).

Victim Portrayal

The victim was vilified by the media from the beginning of the report.

Media Reinforcement of Portrayal

The omnipresent vilification within this news piece was quite heavily supported by the biased comments of the outspoken reporter, who repeatedly mentioned the victim’s prior involvement, or insinuations of prior involvement, in the world of crime.  Not only was the victim vilified, but he was also undignified, as according to the reporter the victim’s body laid next to a car: “only 30 feet behind me” – as the newscaster so prominently said.

Patterns

Official crime statistics and the Quincy murder victim are tied in closely.  The victim is: male, in his 30′s, most likely single, living in lower to middle class environment and with a prior criminal record.  Moreover, the news report further adds strength to this assertion by having viewers assume that there were two white males involved in the killing of the Caucasian victim. This supports the intraracial assertion by Karmen (2007).

Resources

Karmen, A. (2007). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Victimology is a very intriguing Criminal Justice course. It is like no others and will open up the eyes of anyone, even those that may know it all. Victimology is a study of victimization which encompasses:

• The relationship between victims and offenders
• Victim interaction with the Criminal Justice system
  • police
  • courts
  • corrections
• Victim involvement with other organizations and social entities
  • communities
  • media
  • shelters and rehabilitation institutions

By no means is this an extensive list. If anything, it is just the beginning. You will delve into deeper realms of victimization. I know that this course will keep you on your toes and that you will truly enjoy it, no matter what background you have. Here are some other concepts you will explore:

• What is victimology? – Interesting perspectives have been developed on what victimology really is.
• Sources of information about crime victims – This step will give you the insights to the crime and victimization reporting entities. This is where law enforcement, media, and other organizations get there data about crimes and victims. For example, you may want to know how many homicides have been perpetrated in your state, county, city, or even your neighborhood. And, you won’t have to wonder where does the local news get their sources, because you’ll know yourself.
• Victim contribution to their own victimization – This one seems self explanatory, but carries many interesting surprises.
  • There are some victims that may somehow contribute to their own demise. Contrary to the popular belief, you will also learn that not all victims contribute to their own victimization. Different thresholds of victim contribution will be explored. Myths will be dispelled and you may find scratching your head while evaluating your own beliefs.
  • Also, not all victims are truly victims, but rather the criminal who got victimized himself by the victim or potential victim. This one was fun.

I really enjoyed this class and applaud its existence in the Criminal Justice curriculum. After completing this class I have become a better judge of character, situations, and life in general. I can’t promise that you will have the same experience, but I can assure you that this Victimology will open up your mind.

This course may be under a different, but similar, name at your online learning institution. If you want to get an early head start you might want to rent or buy a book by Andrew Karmen titled: Crime Victims: An Introduction To Victimology. It is one of the best write-ups and the book is easy to read. Make sure to get the latest edition. Good luck!