It is a matter of dispute whether criminal justice exists primarily for the right ordering of society or rather to avoid the creation of further victims of crime; whether it is simply retroactive or proactive. Maybe both. Until the late 1870s no particular attention was ever given to the criminal, but only to the criminal act; and up till a century later?say until the 1970s?no special attention was given to victims of crime, but only to the criminal. During the space of that century crimogenic theories abounded admirably. And maybe rightly so. But, in contrast, victimology remained mostly unexplored and grossly underdeveloped. During the last quarter of a century, however, this changed, and victims no longer remained marginal to debates about crime (Matthews, 1994: 93; Karmen, 2001: 2–7). Indeed more and more importance is being given to victims of crime nowadays (United Nations, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, www.un.org/documents/ga/res/40/a40r034. htm). In this essay, while describing two of the many theories of crime causation—one that concentrates on psychopaths, and another that deals with subcultures—, we shall critically review how these view the victim, as opposed to the offender. We shall do this in relation to two concrete corresponding case studies, and with special reference to the position of the victim in the framework of Malta’s criminal law and procedure. While the pyschopath’s victim is unpredictably chosen, the victim of persons under subcultural influences are chosen as symbols of unattainable social values and standards. In Malta both types of victims are denied adequate support or services.

Until very recently victims were mostly the ignored partakers of the criminal justice system, save where it came to giving witness in court. They had no personal rights or any guarantee of support. In the 1950s, Margery Fry (1874-1958)—a British social reformer, and the great grand daughter of the famous prison reformer Elizabeth Fry (1780-1845)—set the scene for what was to come (Victim Support, www.victimsupport.org.uk). She ran a personal campaign to highlight what it was like to be a victim of crime, and to demand compensation for victims. Although she and other co-reformers persuaded the government to set up the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in 1964, she was promoting the rights of a group of people about whom very little was known and in whom there was little interest. Then in 1972 members of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO) in the Bristol area set up the first Victim Support project. Setting out to find out what victims needed, they discovered that victims faced significant emotional, practical and financial problems, but that no statutory agency was taking responsibility for helping them. Two years later, the first Victim Support group was set up in Bristol. Other groups were soon set up around the UK. The National Association of Victims Support Schemes was formed in 1979. Subsequently, increased attention to victims of crime came about by the various victim surveys, spearheaded by the National Crime Victim Surveys (NCVS) in the United States from 1972 onwards, then by the British Crime Survey (BCS) in the United Kingdom from 1982 onwards, and also in various other countries. The first international crime survey (ICVS) was conducted in 1989. Such encouraging developments contrast greatly with victims’ standing in Malta. Here some attention to victims of crime did not begin to emerge before the mid-1990s. Few, if any, victim-oriented regulations or rulings were ever issued (Brienen and Hoegan, 2000: 1156, 1172–3), and unto this day (Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl, www.mddmalta.org) still no national victim support organization exists.

The theories we are about to describe and review in relation to victims and offenders—namely, the one that concentrates on psychopaths, and the other that focuses on subcultures—come from two different “families” of crimogenic theories. The first is part of the Psychological school; the second, of the Sociological. The study of criminal psychopaths is one of the three groups making up the “mentally/brain disorder” theories within the Psychological school. The school also comprises four other sets of theories, namely the psychoanalytical, the “learning” theories, the “developmental” theories, and the “evolutionary psychological” theories. All of these have their own further subdivisions.

The psychopath theory shall be set against the case study of Henrik (not his real name), with whom the author worked closely since March 2001. At that time Henrik was sixteen years old, attractive, innocent looking, unkept, vulnerable, undernourished, and uncared for. Though at the time he was living with other petty thieves, and slept with filthy dogs, Henrik had a long history (since birth, in fact) of institutionalisation. A family member had also constantly sexually abused him between the ages of 11 and 15. Incidentally, he was brought to the attention of the author and his team of carers (at Daritama, an emergency centre at Cospicua, Malta) after a string of petty-theft cases. At first, it was thought that Henrik was simply prey to older and smarter young boys, and so restrain over his former contacts was strictly exercised (Daritama, Monthly Reports, as from February, 2001, onwards). This included giving him independent shelter away from his former derelict flat. Immediately, however, it was evident that Henrik was a compulsive liar. Not only, but also, though provided sufficiently financially and materially, it transpired that he still engaged himself in various covert thefts, always on his own and unaided, and sometimes involving much smart-talk to defraud elderly persons (Borg, 2003: 8-12). Sometimes, he even prostituted himself. Furthermore, he showed himself to be a shrewd manipulator. On the suggestion of the Social Welfare Unit, a psychologist moved in to assess the situation. It was the first time that Henrik was diagnosed as “damaged” and a psychopath. This shocking assessment was confirmed a year later following a more thorough examination on the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (Cassar, 2003: 2). In the meantime, Henrik continued to be involved in more swindling and fraud cases. Finally, he was arraigned to court on one of his many cases, in which he had defrauded a 78-year old lady by threats and terror techniques. Some restitution of funds had to be made to the victim’s family. Shortly afterwards, Henrik was involved in a much more serious case, in which, in an attempt to defraud a 77-year old lady, he savagely assaulted her, leaving her almost dead. He was accused of attempted murder, but also of ten other robberies from diverse sources and victims. After some months at the juvenile prisons, he was granted bail. At one point, in an attempt to try out some animal therapy, Henrik was also provided with a young (and charming) dog. But Henrik proved to be incapable of establishing close relationships, to animals as much as to humans, not even to those who loved and cared for him very much.

Henrik shows all the typical characteristics of a psychopath. His psychological evaluation (ibid.: 2) found that he tends to act out in an antisocial manner. He displays a pervasively rebellious attitude … He frequently questions the rights of others and prefers to control most situations. He thus tends to be blunt and inpatient with the problems and weaknesses of others and could be perceived to be unkind. His profile also indicates a disposition to act in a passive-aggressive manner, often behaving unpredictably. He may be outgoing and pleasant one minute, and hostile and irritable the next. He often feels confused and upset about his moodiness but is unable to control his mood for long periods. His profile indicates a pattern that is consistent with antisocial personality disorder. In addition, he is showing borderline tendencies marked by the affective instability, impulsive hostility and erratic relationships.

The concept of a psychopathic personality was fully developed by Hervey Cleckley in his 1964 book The Mask of Sanity (Schmalleger, 1996: 202). Cleckley called the psychopath a “moral idiot” (ibid.). Though the psychopath is also called a ‘sociopath’, both terms have fallen into professional disfavour (ibid., 205). In fact, by 1968 the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders had discontinued the use of the terms, replacing them with others such as ‘antisocial’ or ‘asocial personality’. Such use, however, has not been embraced by all psychologists since, they contend, antisocial personalities may or may not be psychopathic (Hare, 2003). In fact, some argue that personality disorders may or may not indicate a ‘criminal mind’ (Coleman and Norris, 2000: 42). Others insist on the fact that a psychopathic personality disorder is, in itself, just one type of a noncriminal form of deviance (Hagan, 1985: 59). This is not the only professional divergence regarding psychopaths. While most psychologists, for example, more or less agree on the nature of the most common psychopathic traits, considerable disagreement exists when it comes to explaining what exactly psychopathology is. Some argue—inconclusively (Syndulko, 1978; and Hare and Jutari, 1986)—that there may be some physiological explanation to the condition. Others claim (McCord and McCord, 1964) that it must be due to a disruptive family background. Still others maintain (Lykken, 1955; Scura and Eisenman, 1971; Chesno and Kilmann, 1975) that it is more likely to be due to learning difficulties. ‘Confusion seems endemic,’ Peay concludes (2002: 779). First of all, knowledge concerning the nature of psychopathology is still incomplete. Secondly, the causes of psychopathology are unclear (Schmalleger, 1996: 203). Thirdly, there seems of be a dire lack of research concerning female psychopaths (Bartol, 2002; Schmalleger, 1996: 203-4). Lastly, the relationship of psychopathology to crime is still largely in the dark (Peay, 2002: 779).

Though it is about the traits of the psychopath that most psychologists agree, even here they seem to disagree on what exactly these traits are. Cleckley’s original list included sixteen characteristics (1976; Siegel, 1998: 152; Schmalleger, 1996: 202), but psychiatrists identify as much as twenty-two (Davies and Feldman, 1981). It seems, however, that the most quoted version is Robert Hare’s, who produced a ‘Psychopathy Checklist’ (1980, revised in 1991; Hare, 2003: 1). It is the following:

· Glibness/superficial charm
· Need for stimulation/prone to boredom
· Conning/manipulative
· Shallow emotional response
· Parasitic lifestyle
· Promiscuous sexual behaviour
· Lack of realistic long term goals
· Irresponsibility
· Many short term relationships
· Revocation of conditional release
· Grandiose sense of self worth
· Pathological lying
· Lack of remorse or guilt
· Callous/lack of empathy
· Poor behavioural controls
· Early behavioural problems
· Impulsivity
· Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
· Juvenile delinquency
· Criminal versatility

These, Hare observes (2003: 1), are the most highly researched and recognised characteristics of psychopathic personality and behaviour. According to the Monahan et al. analysis of Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist (2001: 70; quoted in Peay, 2002: 779), psychopaths’ violence appears to be derived from the dimension of their personality related to anti-social behaviour, rather then from that related to their emotional pathology. If so, concludes Peay (2002: 779), this would have obvious implications for the [un]likelihood of success of any treatment regime.

The greater number of the victims who suffered at the hands of Henrik never prosecuted. Most of them never made a report to the police. Henrik’s first court case was instigated by the direct victim’s family; the second by the police. The ten other accusations (at the second trial) were based on revelations made by Henrik himself during interrogation. In both the court cases, attentively reviewing the reports of experts as regards Henrik’s psychopathology, the magistrates were completely at a loss what to do with him. They were made fully conscious by the experts that no dessert really works with psychopaths. Punishment and/or treatment could, as a matter of fact, worsen further the situation. As one expert put it (Cassar, 2003: 2), ‘his impulsive style and difficulties with trusting make it difficult for him to benefit fully from the services of traditional counselling or psychoterapy’. This is one of the reasons (Psychopath Research, http://www. psychopath-research.com) why psychologists—and theorists of psychopathology—view psychopaths as especially ominous. People like Henrik live parasitic lifestyles, they continually manipulate and con people, they are completely callous, and—particularly as in Henrik’s case—they have a compulsive urge to squander large sums of money (on cloths, mobile phones, cars, and the like). Particularly vulnerable people, especially the gullible and (in Henrik’s case) the aged, are all potential victims. Hare (2003: 1) views psychopaths as ‘predators’ with little or no regret, and little or no remorse. As opposed to the offender, the victims are seen as mere obstacles to be overcome and eliminated. Their worth in the eyes of psychopaths is gauged solely in terms of how they can be used. People are considered by them to be just means of stimulation, to build their own self-esteem. Psychopaths invariably value people no more than in terms of their material value (money, property, etc.), and in terms of self-gain. Furthermore, since psychopaths are completely unpredictable (Psychopath Research, http://www.psychopath-research.com), if left without ‘a structured consistent environment, which offers continuous sources of mentoring and behaviour modifications’ (Cassar, 2003: 3), unsuspecting, susceptible and trusting people remain constantly at risk of becoming their unfortunate victims.

Our second theory, that of subcultures, forms one of the two groups making up the “consensual” theories within the Sociological school. They may be so called because they trust that individual behaviour is determined by the existence of consensual norms. In this sense, they distinguish themselves from the “non-consensual” (or control) theories that do not accept limits on the elementary needs and desires of people. Despite this difference, both “consensual” and “non-consensual” theories agree that deviance is a property inherent in certain forms of behaviour. In this sense—being “inherent” sociological explanations of the aetiology of crime—, they distinguish themselves form the “conferrent” theories, which accept that deviance is a property conferred on certain forms of behaviour by an audience.

The subcultural theory shall be set against the case study of Leonhard (not his real name), with whom the author worked closely since April 2002. At the time Leonhard was twenty-two years old, a lively, affable, nervous inmate at the prisons, and with four pending cases before the courts (Daritama, Social Report, 2002: 9–12). Leonhard’s previous convictions—six in all—, and his four pending ones, had to do with cases of robbery to sustain his drug abuse. Leonhard was first sent to the prisons for a couple of days at the age of sixteen. He was in and out of drug rehabilitation centres both before and after his imprisonment. All proved to be unsuccessful with him. He was back at the prisons at the age of eighteen, where he remained until February 2004 (with one interruption at the age of twenty, when he escaped and committed a robbery). On the surface, Leonhard seemed to be simply a young man hopelessly addicted to drugs. Beneath, however, the reality was much more complex. Apart from working with Leonhard himself, the author and his colleagues also dealt with Leonhard’s family and acquaintances. Complexively, a story came out of a profoundly hurt boy who inadvertently drifted from one value system to another. His drug abuse started at the age of thirteen. A few months after Leonhard’s birth, his mother started living with a man who, for twelve whole years, was unusually cruel to Leonhard and his younger brother. The mother tried leaving the man several times, but all to no avail, for shortly afterwards she would be back with him. When Leonhard was thirteen, she left the man for good, and settled in a highly overpopulated depressed district of Malta’s inner harbour area, a district rife with small disorganised gangs of scallywags. Dissatisfied with home, Leonhard started to frequent ‘bad’ company. His chums introduced him to a life of alcohol, drugs, sex, and prostitution. From that point onwards it was a downward trek. With every new conviction, Leonhard grew less optimistic about life, and consequently resigned himself to a life of drugs and robberies. Ever more enraged against anyone in authority, he could see no way out of his misery. At the prisons, however, sick and tired of doing time, Leonhard immediately responded well to attention and treatment. The prospect of more prison convictions terrified him. Hard work with him, his family, his victims, and state officials in the correctional services, succeeded in avoiding further prison sentences in the four cases that had been still pending before the courts. At the prisons he remained clean of drugs, and he also stopped the need of having disciplinary action taken against him for violating prison regulations. On leaving the prisons, he was provided with a job, and at the time of writing is well on the road of a successful return to society.

The earliest socio-criminological writings that directly dealt with subcultures can be traced back to Frederic Thrasher’s 1927 book The Gang, followed by William Whyte’s Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum in 1943 (Schmalleger, 1996: 245-6), both published in Chicago. Though these contributions had put forward the idea of a social subcultural structure, maybe the greatest influence for the emergence of subcultural theories was shaped by Thomas Merton in the 1930s, who, in turn, was influenced by the American Chicago School, and Émile Durkheim’s anomie (‘normlessness’ or disorganisation) concept. While Durkhein insisted upon the power of social ‘moral sanctions’ on individual action, and the Chicago School upon the cultural transmissions of social norms and values, Merton subsequently focused upon the fundamental importance of the position of an individual within a social system. Following these developments, in England the subcultural theories may have been properly launched with the seminal work of John Mays (1954), and in America with the work of Albert Cohan (1955). Many other subcultural theorists followed (Siegel, 1998: 182), the most notable of whom may be Walter Miller (1958), Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960), and David Matza (1957; Schmalleger, 1996: 255). J.M. Yinger notes (1960; quoted in Hagan, 1985: 177) that there are two usages of the term ‘subculture’ by sociologists, anthropologists and criminologists. First it is simply used to identify basic differences in norms and values between dominant and subordinate groups in society. Secondly, it is also used in the social-psychological sense of ‘frustration’ (or ‘strain’) that originates in, and perpetuates, the differences in norms and values. Maybe the most convincing and realistic explanatory account of subcultural offending behaviour to date was offered by Matza (1964; see also Rock, 2002: 57–58). Essentially, his ‘drift theory’ points out that delinquency is a status, and delinquents are role players who intermittently act out a delinquent role. Matza also points out (Haralambos and Holborn, 1995: 396) that, once the young offender ‘neutralises’ the moral bind of society by the use of ‘techniques of neutralisation’, he ‘drifts’ between delinquent and conventional behaviour. He is neither compelled nor committed to delinquent activity but freely chooses it at some times and not at others. He is attracted to deviance by certain ‘subterranean values’ that encourage him to enjoy himself, act on the spur of the moment, freely express his self, be aggressive, and seek excitement (Haralambos and Holborn 1995: 397).

Leonhard’s case perfectly fits Matza’s way of explaining subcultural delinquency. He drifted out of his gang as flexibly as he drifted into it (Daritama, Social Report, 2002: 13), ultimately abandoning it for good. He also justified his delinquency in an attempt at ‘avoid[ing] moral culpability for his criminal action, and thus avoid the negative sanctions of society’ (Sykes and Matza, 1957; reproduced in McLaughlin et al., 2003: 234). Indeed, his subcultural group was not of the type of such structured delinquent gangs as ‘Hooligans’, ‘Teddy Boys’, ‘Mods’, ‘Rockers’, ‘Hippies’, ‘Skinheads’, ‘Glamrock’, ‘Punks’, or the like. Though in Malta some of these types of groups did exist, albeit on a very small scale, none of them were ever engaged in any overt delinquent or criminal activities as such. Leonhard’s ‘gang’ (like various others that existed, and still exist, in Malta’s inner-harbour area) was more of a ‘near-group’, as Yablonsky calls them (1962; quoted in Coleman and Norris, 2000: 65).

The victims who suffered loses at Leonhard’s hands—from the first case before the courts when he was sixteen years of age, until the last case when he was twenty—remained without compensation. Stolen items that were subsequently discovered were returned to their rightful owners, but otherwise the victims received nothing else. As the system is in Malta (Brienen and Hoegan, 2000: 631–2), whenever Leonhard was obliged to pay fines, these were paid to the courts (actually from his mother’s means, who had to borrow them with high interest rates), and never to the victims. Leonhard knew perfectly well the anguish he was causing his mother, and, indeed, this was a cause of much regret on his part (Daritama, Social Report, 2002: 8). He was also completely conscious of the damage and pain he caused to his victims, and was sincerely sorry for them. Notwithstanding, however (as Sykes’ and Matza’s second ‘neutralisation technique’—‘denial of injury’—points out; 1957: 235), he also constantly denied causing any great harm to his victims. Moreover (as Sykes’ and Matza’s third ‘neutralisation technique’—‘denial of the victim’—purports; 1957: 235–6), he also constantly justified his wrongful actions quoting his circumstances, and the life history he had to endure, as an excuse. Unfortunately, since no victim services exist in Malta—other then (something) for children, and people who had suffered from sex offences and domestic violence (Brienen and Hoegan, 2000: 616)—, the loss of trust by the victims in other human beings, their loss of confidence in the ability to protect themselves and their property, and their loss of faith in an ordered world, could not be addressed. In such a predicament (Victim Support Europe; formerly the European Forum for Victims Services, http://www.euvictimservices.org), these effects are aggravated and prolonged. Like most other juvenile delinquents (Sykes and Matza, 1957: 232), Leonhard drew a sharp line between those who could ‘legitimately’ be victimised and those who could not. As Sykes and Matza pointed out (ibid.), the potentiality for victimisation seemed to be a function of the social distance between the juvenile delinquent and others.

Describing two theories of crime and deviance—namely the psychopathologic and the subcultural—in relation to two case studies, we reviewed how they view the victim, as opposed to the offender. Criminologists and criminal justice find it extremely difficult to deal with what is considered to be a psychopathic condition. While the offender is viewed as manipulative, a rip-off, and callous, the victim is viewed as a person in an extremely insecure position, vulnerable, and at a high risk of becoming a target of unpredictable injury. In contrast, subcultural persons may have deviances, but no psychological conditions that render them necessarily criminal. While the offender is viewed as a person who drifted into subcultural behavioural patterns that are a product of differential learning processes in a distinct segment of a pluralistic society, the victim is viewed as a person who in some way ‘attracted’ the ire of the offender by unsuspectingly representing the norms, values, meanings and activities of the dominant culture in relation to which the offender experiences strain and frustration. In Malta victims of psychopathologic and subcultural crimes and violence—indeed just like most other types of victims—are still not given their due right to information, compensation, and protection. Unfortunately, the criminal justice authorities do still generally not respect them.

__________________________________

References:

Appogg, Agenzija (2004), http://www.appogg.gov.mt (accessed February 21, 2004).
Borg, C. (2003), Social Report (concerning the “Henrik” case), made to the Courts of Malta, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, Department of Corrections, Probation Services: Valletta, Malta.
Brienen, M.E.I. and Hoegan, E.H. (2000), Victims of Crime in 22 European Criminal Justice Systems, Wolf Legal Publications: The Netherlands.
Cassar, A.M. (2003), Psychological Evaluation (concerning the “Henrik” case) made to the Ministry of Social Policy, Appogg Agency, St. James Hospital: Zabbar, Malta.
Coleman, C. and Norris, C. (2000), Introducing Criminology, Willan Publishing: Devon (UK) - Oregon (USA).
Council of Europe (2004), http://www.coe.int (accessed February 1, 2004).
Daritama (2001), Social Report (concerning the “Henrik” case), made to the Ministry of Social Police, Social Welfare Unit: Cospicua, Malta.
Daritama (2001-2), monthly reports (concerning the “Henrik” case) made to the Ministry of Social Police, Social Welfare Unit (later Appogg Agency): Cospicua, Malta.
Daritama (2002), Social Report (concerning the “Leonhard” case), made to the Courts of Malta: Cospicua, Malta.
Victim Support Europe - formerly the European Forum for Victim Services, European Union (2004), Statement of Victims’ Rights to Standards of Service, http://www.euvictimservices.org (accessed January 30, 2004).
Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. (1995), Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, 4th edn., Collins Educational: London.
Hare, R. (May 5, 2003), ‘The Psychopathic Personality’, http://www.oregoncounseling.org/ Handouts/PsychopathicPersonality.htm (November 5, 2003).
Hagan, J. (1985), Modern Criminology: Crime, Criminal Behavior, and its Control, McGraw-Hill Series in Criminology and Criminal Justice: New York.
Karmen, A. (2001) Crime Victims: An introduction to victimology, 4th edn., Wadsworth: Belmont.
Laws of Malta (January 2004), http://www.gov.mt/frame.asp?l=2&url=http://www2.justice.gov. mt/lom/ home.asp (accessed January 3, 2004).
Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl, Daritama (January 24, 2004), http://www.mddmalta.org (accessed January 28, 2004).
Montebello, M. (2001), L-Istorja tal-Bidu, Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl, Daritama: Malta.
Nation Master (2004), Crime statistics, http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/mt/Crime& b_define=1&b_cite=1 (accessed February 13, 2004).
Peay, J. (2002), ‘Mentally Disordered Offenders’, in The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, ed. by M. Maguire et al., 3rd edn., Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Psychopath-Research (2003), http://www.psychopath-research.com (accessed December 15, 2003).
Rock, P. (2002), ‘Sociological theories of crime’, in The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, ed. by M. Maguire et al., 3rd edn., Oxford University Press: Oxford, 51-82.
Schmalleger, F. (1996), Criminology Today, Prentice Hall: New Jersey.
Siegel, L.J. (1998), Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies, West/Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmont, 6th edn.
Sykes, G.M. and Matza, D. (1957), ‘Techniques of neutralization’, reproduced in Criminological Perspectives, ed. by E. McLaughlin, J. Muncie and G. Hughes, 2nd edn. (2003), Sage Publications: London, 231-238.
UNICRI, United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (2004), The International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS), http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/group/jfcr/www/icvs/ backindex.htm (accessed February 13, 2004).
United Nations (2004), http://www.un.org (accessed February 1, 2004).
Victim Support (January 2004), http://www.victimesupport.org.uk (accessed January 22, 2004).