No abstract

So far I have argued that in its attempt to explain victimisation by an examination of those held to be victims, and in its particular concentration on the notion of victim-types, on victims of inter-personal crime and on those who contribute to their own victimisation, positivist victimology has faced profound theoretical and operational difficulties which have inevitably limited its explanatory potential. What it has signally failed to do is to explain the everyday social process of identifying and responding to victimising events. The second part of this article examines the central role which this process performs in social life, and proceeds to analyse the parameters and the consequences of that process.

New to English law? Need to know how rules are made, interpreted and applied? This popular and well-established textbook will show you how. It simplifies legal method by combining examples with an account of rules in general: the who, what, why and how of interpretation. Starting with standpoint and context, it identifies factors that give rise to doubts about the interpretation of a rule and recommends a systematic approach to analysing those factors. Questions and exercises integrated in the text and on the accompanying website will help you to develop skills in reading, interpreting and arguing about legal and other rules. The text is fully updated on developments in the legislative process and the judicial interpretation of statutes and precedent. It includes a new chapter on 'The European Dimension' reflecting the changes brought about by the Human Rights Act 1998.

No abstract

This article traces the development of two main theoretical accounts of victimisation. The first of its two parts is an intellectual history of positivist victimology. In its attempt to define victimisation by an examination of those held to be victims, positivist victimology has traditionally pursued three major concerns: the identification of factors in individuals or their environment that conduce to a non-random risk of victimisation, a concentration on inter-personal crimes of violence, and the identification of victims who may be held to have contributed to their victimisation. The article argues that each of these concerns suffers from serious difficulties which have inevitably limited the potential of positivist victimology to explain the everyday social process of identifying and responding to victimising events. The second part argues that this process performs a central role in social life; it is a principal means by which societies maintain their values and identify the limits of non-compliance with them. Critical victimology argues that as the process of labelling individuals as victims involves a statement of values, it is essential to analyse how, when and why some who sustain injury are labelled victims, and others not. The article draws on work within social psychology to explain the main parameters of these decisions.