Most research studies and monographs
dealing with victims of crime generally bypass some of
the most important financial aspects of victimisation.
By and large, they concentrate solely on compensation and
restitution to victims. The very few that venture further
mention businesses – including insurances – in
a negative light, highlighting the lucrative aspect of
their endeavours. One major victimologist, for instance,
Andrew Karmen (2001: 7), presents victims of crime, and
also potential victims, as ‘willing, even eager,
consumers’ of exploitative commercial enterprises
that market crime prevention goods and services.
This is not entirely wholesome. For
some theories of crime prevention actually rely on private
enterprises for their success. The ‘Situational Crime
Prevention Theory’, for example, is one of them.
It is a theory that has lately gained much currency in
Britain, Australia, Canada, the United States and elsewhere.
Britain’s Home Office, for one, is hooked on it soul
and body. What the theory proposes is ‘a preventive
approach [to crime] that relies, not upon improving society
or its institutions, but simply upon reducing opportunities
for crime’ (Ronald Clarke, 1992; quoted in Fritzon & Watts,
2003: 236). Such a project can only work in partnership
with specialised commercial enterprises that offer protection
opportunities to their clients, and these definitely include
the insurance companies. But there is more that could interest
insurances in the line of crime prevention. Recently, for
instance, GasanMamo Insurance actively involved itself
in part of the preparation process for the creation of
Victim Support Malta for Victims of Crime in Malta.
I will later explain what Victim Support Malta stands for. For the
moment it is sufficient to state that GasanMamo’s
involvement was not only a way of endorsing the project
but moreover an innovative manner of contributing to the
further security and protection of society and its members.
In what follows we will examine, first,
the main relevant conclusions that emerged from two recent
discussion meetings held in Malta about victims of crime;
secondly, the nature of Victim Support Malta that
will soon be officially launched in Malta; and lastly,
the interest that insurance companies may have in such
a venture.
One of the important exercises undertaken
in the process of establishing Victim Support Malta
for Victims of Crime in Malta has been the scoping of the
local terrain. Two discussion meetings were held. The first,
which was convened last November, was jointly organised
by the Ministry of Justice & Home Affairs and Mid-Dlam
ghad-Dawl (Daritama). This was a closed working seminar.
It brought together all the interested parties that are
currently in some contact with victims of crime in Malta
and Gozo. The purpose of the seminar was to take account
of the services that were at present being locally offered
to victims of crime. The second meeting was a public conference
held in February. It was organised by Mid-Dlam Dawl-Dawl
as a way of exploring the position that victims of crime
presently held within Malta’s criminal justice system.
The conference was honoured with the special involvement
of President Emeritus, Professor Guido Demarco, Chairman
of the Commonwealth Foundation, and the infrequent participation
of the Hon. Chief Justice, Dr Vincent De Gaetano.
At the November Seminar – the
one about the services offered to crime victims in Malta
and Gozo – a number of relevant observations were
made, namely:
1. There exists some uncertainty as
to who, exactly, can be designated as a ‘victim of
crime’, and in what way this designation could be
acknowledged (whether legally, for instance, morally or
whatever).
2. We still do not know, scientifically
or otherwise, what is the real number of victims of crime
in Malta and Gozo, or, to put it better, what is the true
impact of crime.
3. Though victims of some criminal
acts, such as domestic violence, are being given considerable
attention, victims of other criminal acts – such
as burglary, robbery, fraud, damage, workplace violence,
relatives of murdered persons – are completely uncared
for.
4. No agency exists in Malta or Gozo
that takes full, direct, specific and professional responsibility
of all the victims of crime.
5. No attention is given to victims
of crime who become also witnesses at the criminal courts.
Another relevant observation made
at the seminar, which may be added here as a supplement
to the others, regarded the type of attention given to
victims of crime by most journalists. It was noted that:
6. The almost exclusive interest that
most journalists have in victims of crime arises from the
fact that victims offer them a convenient device in order
to continue to enhance crime problematisation and politicisation,
to create moral panic around certain crimes, or to augment
crime amplification. This might be part of a political
agenda. For the exploitation of victims of crime in such
manner contributes to our ‘crime control performance
culture’ (Robert Reiner, 2003: 266). This is a popular
culture that creates enormous pressure on the judiciary
and prosecution agencies (the police and the Attorney General)
in order that they perform their crime control duties in
a way that appears effective and ‘hard’ in
the eyes of the public. It is also a culture that continues
to give government a suitable opportunity to maintain the
judiciary and the prosecution agencies as a form of ‘fairly
direct government micro-management’ (Tim Newburn,
2003: 94).
The main conclusion drawn at the November
seminar was that:
7. In Malta and Gozo the current services
for victims of crime are all offered for preventive, prosecutive
or penal motives. In no case does a victim receive a service
for his or hers own sake. The victim is always ‘used’ as
a pawn for ulterior motives. Never as an end in himself
or herself.
At the February Conference about the
position of victims in the criminal justice system, further
conclusion were drawn, namely:
8. Better respect to the rights of
victims of crime within the system has to be accomplished
without prejudice to the rights of the accused.
9. The improvement of the position
of victims of crime may be accomplished better both within
the criminal justice system but moreover, and maybe more
effectively, at fora exterior to the system itself.
Victim Support Malta for Victims
of Crime is one of these fora. And so, Victim Support Malta’s
major and immediate objective, at the onset of its operation,
is to establish in Malta for the first time a support and
information service with which victims are treated for
their own sake, without using them, or putting them in
a position to be used, as pawns in some preventive, prosecutive
or penal process or strategy. The accomplishment of such
a novel ideal to our country is being particularly watched
by the London-based Victim Support Europe (VSE; formerly European Forum for Victim Services),
with which, very soon, Victim Support Malta will establish statutory
and formal ties. It is this ideal that qualifies Victim Support Malta
in a category of its very own, and it is also this ideal
that specifically distinguishes its operation with victims
of crime from any other worthy service given to them by
other entities, such as the Appogg Agency or the Probation
Services.
The second most important objective
of Victim Support Malta is to send out a message of hope to all victims
of crime by accessing a service that is tailor-made to
their very own needs. In due time, there will be an appropriate
promotion campaign in this regard. This is necessary because,
apart from receiving referrals from established entities,
such as the Police Force and Local Councils, based on formal
agreements approved by the Commissioner for Data Protection,
victims will be coming to the service by self-referrals,
irrespective whether a report would have been lodged with
the police or whether criminal proceedings would be ongoing.
This will mean that in Malta we will begin to capture,
for the first time, the ‘dark figure of crime’,
that is unreported or undetected victimisation. At present
we do not know anything about this figure locally. Self-referrals
will be an essential component of Victim Support Malta’s set-up,
and Victim Support Malta itself will be pro-active in this regard.
In fact, it will soon launch a professional service particularly
intended to target victims of workplace violence.
The cardinal concept of Victim Support Malta
is that, through support and information offered by professionally
trained volunteers on one-to-one bases, victims of crime
are assisted and guided in their recovery from victimisation.
Though this is, and will remain, the main commitment of
the service, Victim Support Malta will surely continue to seek new
avenues through which it can diversificate its endeavours,
particularly by providing the means and intelligence to
beef up crime data collection, undertake pro-active initiatives
targeting crime prevention in specialised sectors, such
as the workplace, promote discussion, study and research
into the causes and remedies of victimisation, and the
improvement of legal provisions for victims.
The financial aspect of this venture
is obviously most challenging. The impartiality and independence
of Victim Support Malta’s services are being guaranteed by
a sense of economic autonomy. Otherwise they will be bound
to the policies and strategies of third-party gatekeepers,
thus possibly compromising Victim Support Malta’s fundamental
non-utilitarian philosophy. Such self-sufficiency is evidently
easier said than done. The financial and human resources
necessary for the founding of Victim Support Malta
are conferred by the foundation Daritama, which had been
established ten years ago, and which took the initiative
to set off the victims’ service. Obviously, the foundation
is a non-government organisation, and thus self-funded.
Moreover, Victim Support Malta is just one of its institutional branches.
The foundation also offers services to Cottonera children
with special educational needs, to families of prisoners,
and to the prisoners themselves. It additionally runs a
community radio for the Cottonera district. All services
offered by Daritama are free of charge to beneficiaries.
Its main source of income lies with donations given by
the public. Government, through the Ministry for the Family & Social
Solidarity, bestows a grant that covers a very small percentage
of the foundation’s annual expenditure.
All of this means that the foundation’s
common fund is more or less continually under considerable
duress. Now more so with the newly undertaken establishment
of Victim Support Malta for victims of crime. Incidentally, government
is obliged to grant financial aid to institutions such
as Victim Support Malta. Article 13(1) of the Council
Framework Decision on the Standing of Victims in Criminal
Proceedings, issued by the Council of Ministers of the
European Union in 2001 (1), and is binding on Malta (2),
states that:
Providing indemnity policies is indeed
not the only possible way with which insurances can assist
with the protection of citizens from crime. An institution
such as Victim Support Malta for victims of crime,
with its potential, and intention, to diversificate further
its operations, branching into crime prevention, data collecting,
and crime control, may, in turn, enhance the role that
insurance companies, and other commercial enterprises,
seek to play in society.
The importance of the initiative taken
in favour of victims of crime arises from the fact that
a new responsibility is being assumed in our country, a
responsibility that, until recently, had been almost completely
discounted and overlooked. Victim Support Malta
is an interesting and exciting venture that can serve to
develop and improve the deserved and desired respect due
to all victims of crime in our country. Insurance companies
can surely be instrumental in furthering its mission of
reducing the emotional and financial burdens that crime
unjustly imposes.
__________________________________
(1) Official Journal L 082,
22/03/2001 P, 0001 - 0004.
(2) ACQUIS Justice & Home
Affairs - Update 2003 (Justice and Home Affairs). Consolidated
version. Acquis of the European Union under Title IV of
the Treaty Establishing the European Community and title
VI of the Treaty on European Union, XI.– JUDICIAL
COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS, A.– Conventions
to which accession is obligatory: Indicative list of agreements,
conventions and protocols to which the new Member States
must accede ? Obligations arising indirectly from Article
2 of the Act of Accession, which states that ‘from
the date of accession, the provisions of the original Treaties
and the acts adopted by the institutions and the European
Central Bank before accession shall be binding on the new
Member States and shall apply in those States under the
conditions laid down in those Treaties and in this Act’.
This list contains the conventions for which the obligation
to accede is not explicitly spelled out in the Act of Accession,
but results from the binding force of secondary legislation,
from Council Conclusions or from Article 10 EC, as referred
to in Article 2 of the Act of Accession.
____________________________________
References:
Ericson, R., Doyle, A. and
Barry, D. (2003) Insurance as Governance, University of
Toronto Press: Toronto.
Karmen, A. (2001) Crime Victims: An introduction to victimology,
4th edn., Wadsworth: Belmont.
Fritzon, K. and Watts, A. (2003) ‘Crime prevention’,
Handbook of Psychology in Legal Contexts, 2nd edn., 228–244,
eds. D. Carson and R. Bull, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: West
Sussex.
Reiner, R. (2003) ‘Policing and the media’, Handbood
of Policing, ed. by T. Newburn, 259–281, Willan Publishing,
Devon: United Kingdom.
Rock, P. (2004) Constructing Victims’ Rights: The Home
Office, New Labour, and Victims, Clarendon Studies in Criminology,
Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Newburn, T. (2003) ‘Policing since 1945’, Handbood
of Policing, ed. by T. Newburn, 84–105, Willan Publishing,
Devon: United Kingdom.
