Crime, Punishment, and Victim Distress

Abstract

The costs of crime to victims are well-known and research has described the physical, emotional, and financial injuries sustained by crime victims. To date, however, there has been little empirical work which investigates the correlates of victim distress vis-à-vis victim involvement in the criminal justice process. The present study explores the role played by the criminal justice experience in victim distress level and the relative importance of victim, offense, and system participation variables. Multivariate analysis revealed that the level of distress following the victimization is largely a function of offense type, victim perception of sentence severity, and victim demographic characteristics of sex and age. Investigation of the factors predictive of current victim distress level indicated that receiving restitution and the level of distress following the victimization are most important, in addition to the personal characteristics of race and marital status. The implications of these findings for research on victim participation and for policy concerning crime victims are discussed.

Satisfaction With the Initial Police Response and Development of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms in Victims of Domestic Burglary

“…Previous support for this contention has been reported by studies examining the association between psychological well‐being and victim satisfaction with later stages of the criminal justice process than the police investigation stage (i.e., the prosecution and trial stage). Tontodonato and Erez (), for example, found a positive association between victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system and general and current distress (i.e., symptoms of depression) in a mixed sample of victims of violent and property crime. More recently, Orth and Maercker () observed a positive association between moral satisfaction with the case decision and posttraumatic intrusion and hyperarousal symptoms, but not between moral satisfaction with the court decision and posttraumatic avoidance symptoms in victims of violent crime.…”

Crime victimization distress, neighbourhood social cohesion and perceived police effectiveness

“…Crime victims differ in their socio-emotional response to victimization (Tontodonato & Erez, 1994). Using data from the U.S. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) 2009-2012, Langton and Truman (2014) noted that 68% of violent crime victims report that problems like emotional distress, problems with work, school, friends, or family, and an inability to trust, occur because of their victimization, whereas 32% report no problems.…”

Victim Satisfaction With the Criminal Justice System and Emotional Recovery

“…They first asked subjects of the general population of the state of Kentucky to indicate whether they had been criminally victimized during a particular period and then asked them to comment upon the performance of the criminal justice system in their cases. All remaining studies used various types of convenience sampling to select participants, including recruitment via police departments (Frazier & Haney, 1996; Kunst, Rutten, & Knijf, 2013; Miller, 2003), public prosecution offices (Tontodonato & Erez, 1994), courts (Wemmers, 2013), victim/witness programs (Amick-McMullan, Kilpatrick, Veronen, & Smith, 1989), local crime victims’ rights organizations (Amick-McMullan et al, 1989), domestic violence intake centers (Bennett, Cattaneo, & Goodman, 2010), compensation funds (Kunst, 2011; Laxminarayan, 2012, 2013a, 2013b), victim support agencies (Laxminarayan, 2012; Orth, 2002, 2004 [studies 15a and 15b]; Orth & Maercker, 2004 [studies 16a and 16b]; Orth & Maercker, 2009), sexual assault referral centers (Maddox, Lee, & Barker, 2011), counseling agencies (Regehr, Alaggia, Lambert, & Saini, 2008), medical examiner offices (Thompson, Norris, & Ruback, 1996), and advertisements or presentations (Campbell et al, 1999; Campbell, Wasco, Ahrens, Sefl, & Barnes, 2001; Maddox et al, 2011; Regehr et al, 2008; Walsh & Bruce, 2011).…”

“…Only two studies succeeded in obtaining an adequate response rate (Frazier & Haney, 1996; Norris & Thompson, 1993). Fourteen studies failed to obtain an adequate response rate (Bennett et al, 2010; Kunst, 2011, Kunst et al, 2013; Laxminarayan, 2012, 2013b; Orth, 2002, 2004 [studies 15a and 15b]; Orth & Maercker, 2004 [studies 16a and 16b]; Orth & Maercker, 2009; Thompson et al, 1996; Tontodonato & Erez, 1994; Wemmers, 2013), while five other studies could not calculate response rates due to sampling method (Campbell et al, 1999, 2001; Maddox et al, 2011; Regehr et al, 2008; Walsh & Bruce, 2011). Three studies did not provide any information on response rates (Amick-McMullan et al, 1989; Laxminarayan, 2013a; Miller, 2003).…”