Protecting Victims or Protecting the Brand? Secondary Victimization and Cruise Ship Crime

Abstract

It is now widely recognized that victims of crime in general, and victims of sexual offences in particular, commonly experience secondary victimization resulting from dismissive, poor, and sometimes retraumatizing treatment when they encounter the formal criminal justice system. However, little is known about victims’ experiences when initially reporting crime outside of the formal justice system, for example crime that occurs during cruise ship holidays. The cruise industry is the fastest growing tourism sector. The total number of passengers onboard cruise ships internationally was expected to reach 30 million in 2019. There is limited reliable data about how many people experience crime onboard cruise ships, though crime victimization does occur. While victimization onboard cruise ships has received some attention, there is a dearth of evidence about when and how victims report crime, how victims are treated when they report their experience of crime to cruise ship companies, or the justice outcomes. Nor does the available data address whether victims of crime from diverse social groups are treated differently by cruise companies. Drawing on qualitative accounts produced by primary and secondary victims of crime onboard cruise ships, it is argued that as well as the known challenges that victims face, the addition of brand protection can compound cruise ship victims’ experiences of secondary victimization. Secondary victimization refers to additional, or compounded harms experienced because of social or systemic responses to their experience of crime. There are three key implications of these findings: greater understanding of crime victims’ experiences should be developed via refined, mandatory reporting of crime onboard cruise ships, and robust qualitative research; cruise ship staff need improved specialized training in responding to victims of crime, and legislation should be considered mandating an independent authority onboard cruise ships to receive, investigate and monitor victimization reports and responses.

Forensic, medical and legal problems and solutions on passenger and cargo ships

“…Under UNCLOS, the flag State in which a ship is registered has the primary responsibility to report, investigate and prosecute crimes committed on board (Article 94 UNCLOS). However, a state can invoke criminal jurisdiction if the offense is committed in its territorial waters, has a detrimental effect on national security, involves one of its nationals, or the criminal conduct is widely condemned (e.g., genocide or hostage-taking) [44]. In the event of a collision on the high seas which gives rise to criminal or disciplinary liability of the master or any other person in the service of the ship, or in any other incident relating to the sea navigation, criminal or disciplinary proceedings can be instituted against such persons only under the auspices of the judicial or administrative authorities of either the State whose flag the ship flies or the State of nationality of such persons (Article 97 UNCLOS).For example, if a ship is attacked on the high seas, which state can assert jurisdiction over the perpetrator?…”

“…The situation is so complex that a passenger booking a cruise can quite understandably have little or no idea what the terms of travel actually are or even with whom they are making a contract. However, by purchasing a ticket and boarding a cruise ship, passengers agree to the terms, conditions and obligations (or lack thereof) set out in these documents [44]. When a crime occurs on board cruise ships, there are a number of significant obstacles to reporting the crime, including the gravity of the crime, liability and complex government discretion arising from international legislation, the existence of profitoriented regulations in the cruise industry, and lack of research [44].…”

“…However, by purchasing a ticket and boarding a cruise ship, passengers agree to the terms, conditions and obligations (or lack thereof) set out in these documents [44]. When a crime occurs on board cruise ships, there are a number of significant obstacles to reporting the crime, including the gravity of the crime, liability and complex government discretion arising from international legislation, the existence of profitoriented regulations in the cruise industry, and lack of research [44]. Cruise lines offer a range of shore excursions for their passengers to enjoy various ports and generate revenue for the cruise lines.…”

“…Finally, a revamped reporting system should be implemented, including reporting of all crimes (not just those that meet arbitrary thresholds), making data publicly available, and clarity on reporting and recording responsibilities. This will enable comprehensive quantitative research that should be complemented by qualitative research on experiences of crime and victimization that can be tracked over time to promote crime prevention and reduction [44]. When a ship navigates in the territorial waters of a coastal state, the coastal and flag states have concurrent jurisdiction over the ship, but as stated in Article 27 of UNCLOS, when a ship is navigating through the territorial waters of another state, it is subject to the laws of the coastal state, but the coastal state's ability to exercise criminal jurisdiction over the ship remains limited.…”