THE
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOANALYSIS 35:19-26 (1975)
VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE: PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND AFTEREFFECTS Martin Symonds Literature on violent crime generally focuses on the criminal or the criminal act. It has been only in recent years that professional attention has been given to the third element of violent crime - the victim. Studies of victims have, however, emphasized the participant aspects of the victim's behavior, x - 3 A newly developed field of study of victims and their behavior called victomology seems to place undue emphasis on victim-stimulated or victim-precipitated crimes. Sociologists and lawyers seem to predominate in this field, and they continue to assert the concept of victim-precipitated criminality through propinquity, temptation, opportunity, 4 and self-destructiveness. Some psychiatrists s have proposed the concept of victim-stimulated crimes particularly in those acts of murder where the victim and criminal usually have a prior association. B. Mendelson, an outstanding leader in the study of victimology and one who is considered the grandfather of this field, in a recent article still focused on the contribution of the victim to his own suffering. 6 In a development of factors leading to causality, Mendelson regards as the first factor the "No-psychological endogenous environment of the victim himself. This can be the only determinant or one of the determinates of victim behavior, manifested by negligence, thoughtlessness, forgetfulness, inattention, bewilderment, lack of coordination between preception discernment, decision and muscular reaction (faulty or slow), etc. All that evidently in situations where every reasonable person should think about his own security." A tendency of investigators to assign responsibility for criminal acts to victim behavior reinforces similar beliefs and rationalization held by most criminals themselves. It is my view that scientific skepticism should be maintained regarding the concept of victims' participation in their own suffering, particularly in crimes of sudden, unexpected violence where the criminal is unknown to the victim. Therefore the purpose of this paper is to present an aspect of victims that has been neglected or ignored, that is, the innocent or accidental involvement of a victim with a violent crime and the psychological aftereffects of such a crime. Early in my explorations on the subject of victims of violent crimes, I became aware that society has strange attitudes toward victims. There seems to be a marked reluctance and resistance to accept the innocence or accidental nature of victim behavior. Such reluctance is shown by community responses, police behavior, family reactions, and, surprisingly, by the victims themselves. Reluctance or resistance to accept or believe in the total innocence of the victims of violent crimes is shown by
Martin Symonds, M.D., Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine; Psychiatric Consultant, Medical Unit, New York City Police Department.
"20
MARTIN SYMONDS
the early responses to victims after the initial shock response of the nonvictim listener wears off. "Didn't you know this neighborhood is dangerous to walk in after dark?" "Did you have your door locked? . . . . Weren't you suspicious of that man in the elevator? .... Why didn't you scream?.... Did you look before you opened the door?" In general, the theme follows a course of aggressive questioning, along the line of "Didn't you know? .... Couldn't you tell? .... Why, why, why did it happen?" All these questions imply that the victims could have prevented or avoided their injuries. If we could talk to the tragic victims who died as a result of violent street crimes, would we ask, "Why did you walk alone in that neighborhood? Didn't you know that was dangerous?" People sometimes respond angrily to rape victims and say: " I f she was stupid enough to go out in a neighborhood like that, she deserved it." This general early response to victims stems from a basic need for all individuals to find a rational explanation for violent, particularly brutal, crimes. Exposure to senseless, irrational, brutal behavior makes one fee[ vulnerable and helpless. It makes one feel that it can happen at any time, in any place, and to anyone. It is a relief to believe that the victim has done something or neglected something that plausibly contributed to the crime. It makes the other person feel less helpless and less vulnerable. Questions to determine the cause of the crime are directed toward the victim since the criminal is not available for examination. .As part of a study to fully understand victims of violent crimes, I decided to interview men who had committed "mugging." One of the questions I was trying to answer was why a mugger would beat a victim after he had taken the victim's money. In one series of interviews I spoke to four sentenced men, each of whom implied that he had committed more than a hundred muggings. I did not find these men to be irrational, violent, impulsive, or sadistic, but experienced them (remember I saw them in a prison setting) as quiet, rational, and not psychotic. They were, however, singularly lacking in insight and frightening in their inability to relate to anyone's needs but their own. One man said, "1 am not a sadist. 1 don't beat people - only if they are slow in giving me my money." Individuals I have interviewed outside a prison setting who have admitted to mugging also showed this pattern of marked social unrelatedness, of living only in egocentric time with no hope for the future. Their cri'mes are neither particularly thought out nor are they particularly impulsive. Their criminal behavior isn't essentially sadistic; it is commonplace and gross. Their crimes are primarily money oriented, and they have no sophisticated patterns of victim selection. Most of them are surprised at victim cooperation and yet would beat the victims senseless if they didn't cooperate. Some of these muggers had themselves been mugged, and I asked them how they had reacted. Each said: "1 got angry and fought back." When I asked them why they fought back, they responded by saying, "1 worked hard for the money, I wasn't going to give it up." They failed to appreciate that their victims felt the same way. The community has other attitudes that block sympathetic responses to the victim's plight. One is the primitive fear of contamination by the unlucky victim. The result of this primitive response of fear is to isolate or exclude the victim. Teachers of primary grades are often upset by their pupils' response to the mis-
VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
21
fortune of a classmate such as a death in his family or the divorce of his parents. His classmates frequently will ignore him; often they will tease him and some even will hit him. It is as if the other children fear contamination by the tragic event and therefore try to isolate or exclude the victim. A similar response can also be seen in a community - for example, the attitude of the working-class community toward a woman who has been raped. The victim experiences isolation and exclusion through notoriety. There are whispering campaigns, and a doubt as to the innocence of the victim. If she is youtlg and single, she can be subjected to annoying behavior by men in the community without the usual protective interference of other individuals. Some rape victims who experienced this exclusion through notoriety had to move from their neighborhood. To further my understanding of society's attitudes toward victims I examined the dictionary definitions of the word vict/m. It seems that the word'has its etymological root in early antiquity. It originally meant a beast selected for sacrifice, and it is intimately tied up with the concept of the scapegoat. The sacrifice of the victim or the exclusion of the scapegoat would symbolically make the rest of the community safe from harm. When the victim was a person, it had, with few exceptions, to be someone young and very pure or someone very old or a stranger. The ideal victim was someone who had no deep roots in the community. To this day the word victim has unpleasant associations, and people usually have feelings of uneasiness when they associate or are identified with victims. As a result, individuals develop an illogical ritualistic defense against being a victim. If you act good nothing bad will happen to you. Therefore, if something bad does happen to you, you weren't acting good. If you act right nothing wrong wilt happen; something wrong happened, therefore you weren't acting right. There is also the response of seeming indifference to the victim's plight. This is the most common complaint of victims of violent crimes when they discuss the way the community responded to what happened to them, and it is frequently aimed at the police. The seeming indifference of the community, including the police, is due to the fact that by the time the victim is seen the criminal act has happened, the criminal is gone, and protective action is no longer possible. The victim's expression of distress is, however, experienced by the listener as an implied demand that something be done, as well as an implied criticism that the listener failed to protect the victim from the tragic experience. The seeming indifference of the police which the victim experiences is due to a misinterpretation by the police of the concept of professionalism. In their zeal to be neutral, and since the crime is in the past and the criminal gone, they aggressively question the victim about the details of the crime. This behavior rejects the victim's expectations of comfort, and it also rejects the victim's implied criticism that the police have failed to do their job of protecting him from crime. One woman who was the victim of a mugging told me that when the radio car responded the patrolmen sat in the car and she had to lean on the ledge of the open window of the car and talk to them. The police told her, "You aren't the only one who has been mugged. We get plenty of other calls." Such behavior can only make the victim feel worse. Up to now I have described society's responses to victims of violence. Let us now
22
MARTIN SYMONDS
explore the psychological reactions of the victims themselves. The object of a sudden, unexpected attack of violence will initially respond with shock, numbness, and disbelief. There will then follow either fright or anger. In a street crime in which the criminal runs away after knocking the victim to the ground and taking his money, this response of fright or anger ensues without the criminal being present. In the crimes of rape, and some other sexual crimes, as well asin kidnapping, hostage taking, and robbery, the psychological response of fright or anger arises when the criminal is present because of the threat of bodily harm if the victim doesn't comply. In the crimes of kidnapping and hostage taking there may be special psychological responses that would seem bizarre and unbelievable to one who did not understand the dynamics of these criminal acts. In most crimes, the intent of the criminal is to be anonymous: to have minimal contact with the victim, to gather the proceeds of the crime without any contact with the family of the victim or law-enforcement officials. In the crimes of kidnapping and hostage taking the criminal must have contact not only with the victim but with others as well. The capture and custody of the victim is used as a lever to force the family or police to fulfill the criminal's goal. As a result a bizarre situation arises. The criminal, to sustain his leverage, must either make sure that the victim is alive or create that illusion. A paradox ensues; the criminal is now experienced by the victim as his protector, and it is the family and the police who, by their behavior or refusal to accede to the criminal demands, endanger the victim's life. In addition, overwhelming terror in a victim causes clinging, nonthinking behavior; he clings to the very person who has placed him in danger. Under such conditions where the anxiety or terror is overwhelming the victim easily distorts reality. Then the victim will actively view the family and police as the enemy. This process, which can be seen as self-induced brainwashing, may have occurred with Patricia Hearst. This type of violent crime, where the time element permits the victim responses other than shock and disbelief, with the criminal still being present, is more likely to result in psychological repercussions long after the criminal act. In these crimes the fright response of victims is usually a frozen, frightened reaction. The reaction of fear is so profound and overwhelming that the victim feels hopeless about getting away. All hope of survival is dependent on appeasing the criminal. Years ago I examined an eight-year-old girl who was thought to be a victim of incest. 1 found a young, extremely bright, very friendly, vivacious, and cooperative youngster. When I ended the interview and told her she could go, she took a deep breath, sighed deeply and said: "1 thought I'd never get out of here alive." At that time, and even in retrospect, I saw no direct evidence of fright. Since then I have collected many clinical examples of frozen fright where the individual has confused the listener with his surface pleasantries, ingratiating, extremely cooperative, and seemingly friendly behavior. Though this behavior is deeply rooted in profound fright, it is confusing both to the victim and to the criminal. Later on when the victim reviews his behavior under peaceful conditions, he plays down the ingratiating aspects of his behavior under stress because he is ashamed of it, and thus lays down the seeds of guilt. The appeasing, ingratiating, compliant behavior of a victim of
VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
23
violence during the phase of frozen fright often leads to the false conclusion that the victim produced or participated in the criminal act. There are individuals whose response to sudden, unexpected violence is not frozen fright but anger. Even though their behavior is rooted in profound fright, the victim recalls only being angry. They screamed, hit, or yelled. They said to the criminal: "Get the hell away. What are you doing? Leave me alone, I'll call the police." Some have attacked the criminal with their purse, their hands, or thrown things at the him. What happens to the victims depends on circumstances and on the mental health of the criminal. While some back down and even run away, more often the criminal feels frustrated and angry. This results in a violent attack on the victim to beat him into submission and compliance. A woman said to a criminal who was robbing her store: "1'11 never forget you face." He shot her in the head and blinded her. As I reviewed the early, acute responses to violence, it seemed to me that these responses were rooted in early life experiences. The frozen, frightened response to sudden, unexpected, and violent aggression is more commonly seen in women. It is my impression that men and women from middle-class backgrounds generally tend to freeze and propitiate the aggressor, while those who have working-class backgrounds tend to be action oriented and fight back. In the postacute phase, the dramatic events of the crime are continually replayed by the victim. Those who fought back and weren't hurt seem to have a minimum amount of psychological trauma. They feel exhilerated and potent. Those who fought back and were hurt still feel supported by society. They easily find sympathetic responses, though some have felt annoyed by police reactions. They felt the police were defensive and took the tone: "You didn't let me do my job. Next time you let the police protect you." In general, victims who fight back seem to have greater social acceptance than the victims who have followed society's rules and have complied with the criminal. This double-bind attitude of society is strikingly evident toward vic:[ims of rape. From Charles O'Hara's widely accepted book on criminal investigation technique, 7 I have selected the following passages which deal with the behavior of a police investigator toward a victim of rape. The victim should be interviewed as soon as possible after the occurrence. The victim should be questioned thoroughly concerning the occurrence, the circumstances surrounding i t a n d her movements before and after the commission of the o f f e n s e . . . . (Page 281) The victim of an alleged rape should be requested to submit to a medical examination as soon as possible after the occurrence. No delay should be permitted. (Page 282) Where a vigorous woman alleges ravishment it is to be expected that signs of violence such as wounds, bruises and scratches will be present and their absence should induce a moderate degree of skepticism unless the girl avers that she fainted from fear, became panic stricken or was otherwise rendered incapable of physical resistance. The acts and demeanor of the female immediately after the alleged commission should be subjected to very critical investigation in these cases. (Page 293)
This attitude of treating the victim of rape with skepticism and cynicism, especially if she complies with the criminal because of profound shock and fright, is at wide variance
24
MARTIN SYMONDS
with the generally accepted advice given by society. In another book, How to Keep Crime From Happening to You, 8 the repeated advice is: "The best single thing you can do to protect yourself from bodily harm is 'Tell me what you want and I'll give it to y o u . ' " A young adolescent girl was the victim of rape. The police who investigated the crime continually questioned the parents about their daughter's behavior. These questions followed the textbook dicta: "critical investigation of the acts and demeanor of the female." However, the parents became confused, angry, and frightened by the detective's attitude. In their desire to protect their daughter, they developed a collusive attitude of silence with their daughter. Though there was a grandmother in the house, this conspiracy of silence kept her unaware of what had happened to her granddaughter. As I continued to talk to victims of violence, I became aware that the general reactions of these victims were similar to the psychological response of an individual who experiences sudden and unexpected loss. Loss of any kind, particularly if sudden and unexpected, produces a certain sequence of response in all individuals. The first response is shock and denial. When attempts at denial fail the person becomes frightened, and this fright is usually accompanied by clinging behavior. Very frequently he finds himself compulsively talking and obsessively ruminating. This phase is followed by apathy with periods of recrimination and inner-directed rage. There are occasional outbursts of outer-directed resentment and anger until resolution occurs through either replacement or restoration of the lost object. This description of the psychological response to sudden and unexpected loss is easily recognizable as the same phases seen in depression. This concept is of clinical value in the psychological treatment of victims. What has the victim of violence lost? It is more than just the loss of money and the loss of physical functioning.They have lost their trust in society, which they have depended on to protect them from harm. Many have lost their self-respect when they view their compliant behavior with shame, and they have gained the unenviable status of being a victim. For some individuals, particularly conforming and dependent ones, there is prolongation of one or more phases of the victim reaction just described. Some victims remain for months in the phase of fright with clinging behavior. Extra locks, extra precautions, and excessive suspiciousness substitute for judgment. They cling to their family and obsessively ruminate about what happened to them. Their family begins to feel that this compulsive talking is bad for them, and they urge the victim to be silent. I have had difficulty getting to talk with some of these victims because of the protective attitude of their families. Yet, when I have managed to talk to the victims, I have found them anxious and eager to talk, and some have mobilized their resources to become less frightened. It seems to me that the mistaken concept of protective silence prolongs the depressive reaction of victims. In this phase of fright of the victim reaction, some report persistent recurrent fantasies or dreams that have a similar theme. The most frequent theme is that the criminal will come back and either kill them or injure them more seriously. Sometimes the victim has a fleeting but recurrent thought of killing the criminal, but this thought is completely submerged by counter-thoughts - what if he fails, or, if he succeeds,
VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
25
won't the criminal's family or friends seek his death in revenge? Other victims try to deny what happened to them. A few days after one man was robbed, he thought he recognized the robber. The man he suspected was working in a store where the victim rarely shopped. The victim walked away and later could neither remember what store the suspected man worked in nor on which street the store was located. When I asked him what he was shopping for he angrily refused to continue to talk about the incident. Other individuals have a prolonged period of apathy with inner- and outer-directed rage. The loss of feelings of invulnerability, the disillusionment in society's ability to protect him from harm quite often intensify his feelings of resentment and anger. Commonly heard expressions in this phase are: "The hell with people, who needs them. You got to look out for yourself. People are animals. The world is a jungle. No one gives a damn." A woman victim said: "What hurt me the most was the complete indifference and lack of consideration for my feelings in my hour of need by people I know and work with." There are also frequent comments attacking police behavior. Police make an ideal scapegoat because of their traditional policy of keeping silent when attacked. When one suffers an injury from a criminal one is a victim of a crime. When society responds by ignoring, excluding, and in addition accusing the victim of participating in the criminal act, he then becomes a victim of society. This paradoxical attitude of society causes the victim to feel isolated and helpless and to experience the world as hostile. This response has been defined by Karen Horney 9 as basic anxiety. It produces profound adaptive and defensive patterns which form the core of the chronic psychological responses of victims. Any measure the community employs that reduces the victim's feelings of isolation, aloneness, and helplessness will also reduce his secondary psychological trauma. The growing awareness that anyone can be vulnerable to crimes of violence has caused the community to be more genuinely sympathetic to the *ictim. However, one segment of society that the victim must come in contact with, as a result of his misfortune, seems to lag behind in this growing sympathy and empathy.This is the criminal justice system. Judges, prosecutors, the legal profession, and the police still are somewhat removed from the personal plight of victims. I recently spoke to a judge about victims and he said: "You know, I never really thought about it. My concern was always the application of the law. I thought of the criminal act and what to do about the criminal, but not the victim." This diffident attitude toward victims is derived from the legal model, which is based on the adversary principle. A case is won not by the truth but by the better argument pro or con. The victim's plight is exploited or attacked when the adversary principle of law is applied. It would require another paper, and a long one at that, to fully discuss the psychological trauma victims receive from all aspects of the administration of criminal justice. Although the public cannot change the entire legal system, they can substantially influence the police. The police are usually the first to encounter the victim, generally after the crime has been committed and the criminal gone. Police attitudes can be
26
MARTIN SYMONDS
quite crucial in reducing the victim's acute psychological trauma and can also help prevent the debilitating secondary trauma most victims undergo. From personal experience I know the police are sensitive to criticism and resent anyone telling them how to do their work. But police do have a high regard for professionals and they are receptive to ideas that will improve their ability to be of help to the public. If we in the helping professions support the idea that victims need psychological help, the police, who are in a unique position to administer psychological first aid, will turn to us for advice. In conclusion, victims want something from society for the injuries they received. They have suffered loss of money, sometimes severe and permanent physical injuries, their self-respect has been damaged, their illusions of trust that the community will protect them from harm have been shattered. They cannot get anything back from the criminal. Society's usual response to violent crime is to become outraged against the criminal. There is an outcry for more stringent law and calls for more police. There are demands for retribution and punishment. Little of this is helpful to the victim. Revenge and retribution will not heal the victim's psychological wounds. What is needed is a wholehearted, sympathetic and empathetic response from the community toward the victim. A woman who was mugged sent me a letter in which she described what happened to her and what she would like done. I could do no better than to end this paper by quoting her: " I t is not that the victim wishes to wallow in self-pity: it is that at such a crucial time - a very frightening experience at least and one that could have resulted in the victim's being actually killed or seriously h u r t - t h a t such a person should immediately be given the same moral support, and words of comfort and caring, that you would give one who has just lost a loved one."
REFERENCES 1. Von Hentig, H. The Criminaland His Victim. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948. 2. Schafer, S. The Victim and His Criminal. New York: Random House, 1968. 3. Mulvihill and Tumin. "Crimes of Violence." In National Commission on Causes and Prevention o f Violence, vol. 2. U.S. Government Printing Office. 4. Fooner, M. "Victim Induced Criminality." Science 153: (1966) 1080-1083. 5. Abrahamson, D. The Psychology of Crime. New York: John Wiley, 1960. 6. Mendelson, B. "Victimology and the Needs of Contemporary Society." The Israel Annals of Psychiatry 2:(1973) 189-198. 7. O'Hara, C. E. Fundamentals o f Criminal Investigation. Springfield, Illinois: Charles Thomas, 1970. 8. de Celle, ]. How to Keep Crime From Happening To You, The Safety Strategy. Joseph Rank, 1971. 9. Homey, Karen. Our Inner Conflicts. New York: Norton, 1945.
Reprint requests to 137 E. 36th Street, New York, N.Y. 10016
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOANALYSIS 35:19-26 (1975)
VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE: PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND AFTEREFFECTS Martin Symonds Literature on violent crime generally focuses on the criminal or the criminal act. It has been only in recent years that professional attention has been given to the third element of violent crime - the victim. Studies of victims have, however, emphasized the participant aspects of the victim's behavior, x - 3 A newly developed field of study of victims and their behavior called victomology seems to place undue emphasis on victim-stimulated or victim-precipitated crimes. Sociologists and lawyers seem to predominate in this field, and they continue to assert the concept of victim-precipitated criminality through propinquity, temptation, opportunity, 4 and self-destructiveness. Some psychiatrists s have proposed the concept of victim-stimulated crimes particularly in those acts of murder where the victim and criminal usually have a prior association. B. Mendelson, an outstanding leader in the study of victimology and one who is considered the grandfather of this field, in a recent article still focused on the contribution of the victim to his own suffering. 6 In a development of factors leading to causality, Mendelson regards as the first factor the "No-psychological endogenous environment of the victim himself. This can be the only determinant or one of the determinates of victim behavior, manifested by negligence, thoughtlessness, forgetfulness, inattention, bewilderment, lack of coordination between preception discernment, decision and muscular reaction (faulty or slow), etc. All that evidently in situations where every reasonable person should think about his own security." A tendency of investigators to assign responsibility for criminal acts to victim behavior reinforces similar beliefs and rationalization held by most criminals themselves. It is my view that scientific skepticism should be maintained regarding the concept of victims' participation in their own suffering, particularly in crimes of sudden, unexpected violence where the criminal is unknown to the victim. Therefore the purpose of this paper is to present an aspect of victims that has been neglected or ignored, that is, the innocent or accidental involvement of a victim with a violent crime and the psychological aftereffects of such a crime. Early in my explorations on the subject of victims of violent crimes, I became aware that society has strange attitudes toward victims. There seems to be a marked reluctance and resistance to accept the innocence or accidental nature of victim behavior. Such reluctance is shown by community responses, police behavior, family reactions, and, surprisingly, by the victims themselves. Reluctance or resistance to accept or believe in the total innocence of the victims of violent crimes is shown by
Martin Symonds, M.D., Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine; Psychiatric Consultant, Medical Unit, New York City Police Department.
"20
MARTIN SYMONDS
the early responses to victims after the initial shock response of the nonvictim listener wears off. "Didn't you know this neighborhood is dangerous to walk in after dark?" "Did you have your door locked? . . . . Weren't you suspicious of that man in the elevator? .... Why didn't you scream?.... Did you look before you opened the door?" In general, the theme follows a course of aggressive questioning, along the line of "Didn't you know? .... Couldn't you tell? .... Why, why, why did it happen?" All these questions imply that the victims could have prevented or avoided their injuries. If we could talk to the tragic victims who died as a result of violent street crimes, would we ask, "Why did you walk alone in that neighborhood? Didn't you know that was dangerous?" People sometimes respond angrily to rape victims and say: " I f she was stupid enough to go out in a neighborhood like that, she deserved it." This general early response to victims stems from a basic need for all individuals to find a rational explanation for violent, particularly brutal, crimes. Exposure to senseless, irrational, brutal behavior makes one fee[ vulnerable and helpless. It makes one feel that it can happen at any time, in any place, and to anyone. It is a relief to believe that the victim has done something or neglected something that plausibly contributed to the crime. It makes the other person feel less helpless and less vulnerable. Questions to determine the cause of the crime are directed toward the victim since the criminal is not available for examination. .As part of a study to fully understand victims of violent crimes, I decided to interview men who had committed "mugging." One of the questions I was trying to answer was why a mugger would beat a victim after he had taken the victim's money. In one series of interviews I spoke to four sentenced men, each of whom implied that he had committed more than a hundred muggings. I did not find these men to be irrational, violent, impulsive, or sadistic, but experienced them (remember I saw them in a prison setting) as quiet, rational, and not psychotic. They were, however, singularly lacking in insight and frightening in their inability to relate to anyone's needs but their own. One man said, "1 am not a sadist. 1 don't beat people - only if they are slow in giving me my money." Individuals I have interviewed outside a prison setting who have admitted to mugging also showed this pattern of marked social unrelatedness, of living only in egocentric time with no hope for the future. Their cri'mes are neither particularly thought out nor are they particularly impulsive. Their criminal behavior isn't essentially sadistic; it is commonplace and gross. Their crimes are primarily money oriented, and they have no sophisticated patterns of victim selection. Most of them are surprised at victim cooperation and yet would beat the victims senseless if they didn't cooperate. Some of these muggers had themselves been mugged, and I asked them how they had reacted. Each said: "1 got angry and fought back." When I asked them why they fought back, they responded by saying, "1 worked hard for the money, I wasn't going to give it up." They failed to appreciate that their victims felt the same way. The community has other attitudes that block sympathetic responses to the victim's plight. One is the primitive fear of contamination by the unlucky victim. The result of this primitive response of fear is to isolate or exclude the victim. Teachers of primary grades are often upset by their pupils' response to the mis-
VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
21
fortune of a classmate such as a death in his family or the divorce of his parents. His classmates frequently will ignore him; often they will tease him and some even will hit him. It is as if the other children fear contamination by the tragic event and therefore try to isolate or exclude the victim. A similar response can also be seen in a community - for example, the attitude of the working-class community toward a woman who has been raped. The victim experiences isolation and exclusion through notoriety. There are whispering campaigns, and a doubt as to the innocence of the victim. If she is youtlg and single, she can be subjected to annoying behavior by men in the community without the usual protective interference of other individuals. Some rape victims who experienced this exclusion through notoriety had to move from their neighborhood. To further my understanding of society's attitudes toward victims I examined the dictionary definitions of the word vict/m. It seems that the word'has its etymological root in early antiquity. It originally meant a beast selected for sacrifice, and it is intimately tied up with the concept of the scapegoat. The sacrifice of the victim or the exclusion of the scapegoat would symbolically make the rest of the community safe from harm. When the victim was a person, it had, with few exceptions, to be someone young and very pure or someone very old or a stranger. The ideal victim was someone who had no deep roots in the community. To this day the word victim has unpleasant associations, and people usually have feelings of uneasiness when they associate or are identified with victims. As a result, individuals develop an illogical ritualistic defense against being a victim. If you act good nothing bad will happen to you. Therefore, if something bad does happen to you, you weren't acting good. If you act right nothing wrong wilt happen; something wrong happened, therefore you weren't acting right. There is also the response of seeming indifference to the victim's plight. This is the most common complaint of victims of violent crimes when they discuss the way the community responded to what happened to them, and it is frequently aimed at the police. The seeming indifference of the community, including the police, is due to the fact that by the time the victim is seen the criminal act has happened, the criminal is gone, and protective action is no longer possible. The victim's expression of distress is, however, experienced by the listener as an implied demand that something be done, as well as an implied criticism that the listener failed to protect the victim from the tragic experience. The seeming indifference of the police which the victim experiences is due to a misinterpretation by the police of the concept of professionalism. In their zeal to be neutral, and since the crime is in the past and the criminal gone, they aggressively question the victim about the details of the crime. This behavior rejects the victim's expectations of comfort, and it also rejects the victim's implied criticism that the police have failed to do their job of protecting him from crime. One woman who was the victim of a mugging told me that when the radio car responded the patrolmen sat in the car and she had to lean on the ledge of the open window of the car and talk to them. The police told her, "You aren't the only one who has been mugged. We get plenty of other calls." Such behavior can only make the victim feel worse. Up to now I have described society's responses to victims of violence. Let us now
22
MARTIN SYMONDS
explore the psychological reactions of the victims themselves. The object of a sudden, unexpected attack of violence will initially respond with shock, numbness, and disbelief. There will then follow either fright or anger. In a street crime in which the criminal runs away after knocking the victim to the ground and taking his money, this response of fright or anger ensues without the criminal being present. In the crimes of rape, and some other sexual crimes, as well asin kidnapping, hostage taking, and robbery, the psychological response of fright or anger arises when the criminal is present because of the threat of bodily harm if the victim doesn't comply. In the crimes of kidnapping and hostage taking there may be special psychological responses that would seem bizarre and unbelievable to one who did not understand the dynamics of these criminal acts. In most crimes, the intent of the criminal is to be anonymous: to have minimal contact with the victim, to gather the proceeds of the crime without any contact with the family of the victim or law-enforcement officials. In the crimes of kidnapping and hostage taking the criminal must have contact not only with the victim but with others as well. The capture and custody of the victim is used as a lever to force the family or police to fulfill the criminal's goal. As a result a bizarre situation arises. The criminal, to sustain his leverage, must either make sure that the victim is alive or create that illusion. A paradox ensues; the criminal is now experienced by the victim as his protector, and it is the family and the police who, by their behavior or refusal to accede to the criminal demands, endanger the victim's life. In addition, overwhelming terror in a victim causes clinging, nonthinking behavior; he clings to the very person who has placed him in danger. Under such conditions where the anxiety or terror is overwhelming the victim easily distorts reality. Then the victim will actively view the family and police as the enemy. This process, which can be seen as self-induced brainwashing, may have occurred with Patricia Hearst. This type of violent crime, where the time element permits the victim responses other than shock and disbelief, with the criminal still being present, is more likely to result in psychological repercussions long after the criminal act. In these crimes the fright response of victims is usually a frozen, frightened reaction. The reaction of fear is so profound and overwhelming that the victim feels hopeless about getting away. All hope of survival is dependent on appeasing the criminal. Years ago I examined an eight-year-old girl who was thought to be a victim of incest. 1 found a young, extremely bright, very friendly, vivacious, and cooperative youngster. When I ended the interview and told her she could go, she took a deep breath, sighed deeply and said: "1 thought I'd never get out of here alive." At that time, and even in retrospect, I saw no direct evidence of fright. Since then I have collected many clinical examples of frozen fright where the individual has confused the listener with his surface pleasantries, ingratiating, extremely cooperative, and seemingly friendly behavior. Though this behavior is deeply rooted in profound fright, it is confusing both to the victim and to the criminal. Later on when the victim reviews his behavior under peaceful conditions, he plays down the ingratiating aspects of his behavior under stress because he is ashamed of it, and thus lays down the seeds of guilt. The appeasing, ingratiating, compliant behavior of a victim of
VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
23
violence during the phase of frozen fright often leads to the false conclusion that the victim produced or participated in the criminal act. There are individuals whose response to sudden, unexpected violence is not frozen fright but anger. Even though their behavior is rooted in profound fright, the victim recalls only being angry. They screamed, hit, or yelled. They said to the criminal: "Get the hell away. What are you doing? Leave me alone, I'll call the police." Some have attacked the criminal with their purse, their hands, or thrown things at the him. What happens to the victims depends on circumstances and on the mental health of the criminal. While some back down and even run away, more often the criminal feels frustrated and angry. This results in a violent attack on the victim to beat him into submission and compliance. A woman said to a criminal who was robbing her store: "1'11 never forget you face." He shot her in the head and blinded her. As I reviewed the early, acute responses to violence, it seemed to me that these responses were rooted in early life experiences. The frozen, frightened response to sudden, unexpected, and violent aggression is more commonly seen in women. It is my impression that men and women from middle-class backgrounds generally tend to freeze and propitiate the aggressor, while those who have working-class backgrounds tend to be action oriented and fight back. In the postacute phase, the dramatic events of the crime are continually replayed by the victim. Those who fought back and weren't hurt seem to have a minimum amount of psychological trauma. They feel exhilerated and potent. Those who fought back and were hurt still feel supported by society. They easily find sympathetic responses, though some have felt annoyed by police reactions. They felt the police were defensive and took the tone: "You didn't let me do my job. Next time you let the police protect you." In general, victims who fight back seem to have greater social acceptance than the victims who have followed society's rules and have complied with the criminal. This double-bind attitude of society is strikingly evident toward vic:[ims of rape. From Charles O'Hara's widely accepted book on criminal investigation technique, 7 I have selected the following passages which deal with the behavior of a police investigator toward a victim of rape. The victim should be interviewed as soon as possible after the occurrence. The victim should be questioned thoroughly concerning the occurrence, the circumstances surrounding i t a n d her movements before and after the commission of the o f f e n s e . . . . (Page 281) The victim of an alleged rape should be requested to submit to a medical examination as soon as possible after the occurrence. No delay should be permitted. (Page 282) Where a vigorous woman alleges ravishment it is to be expected that signs of violence such as wounds, bruises and scratches will be present and their absence should induce a moderate degree of skepticism unless the girl avers that she fainted from fear, became panic stricken or was otherwise rendered incapable of physical resistance. The acts and demeanor of the female immediately after the alleged commission should be subjected to very critical investigation in these cases. (Page 293)
This attitude of treating the victim of rape with skepticism and cynicism, especially if she complies with the criminal because of profound shock and fright, is at wide variance
24
MARTIN SYMONDS
with the generally accepted advice given by society. In another book, How to Keep Crime From Happening to You, 8 the repeated advice is: "The best single thing you can do to protect yourself from bodily harm is 'Tell me what you want and I'll give it to y o u . ' " A young adolescent girl was the victim of rape. The police who investigated the crime continually questioned the parents about their daughter's behavior. These questions followed the textbook dicta: "critical investigation of the acts and demeanor of the female." However, the parents became confused, angry, and frightened by the detective's attitude. In their desire to protect their daughter, they developed a collusive attitude of silence with their daughter. Though there was a grandmother in the house, this conspiracy of silence kept her unaware of what had happened to her granddaughter. As I continued to talk to victims of violence, I became aware that the general reactions of these victims were similar to the psychological response of an individual who experiences sudden and unexpected loss. Loss of any kind, particularly if sudden and unexpected, produces a certain sequence of response in all individuals. The first response is shock and denial. When attempts at denial fail the person becomes frightened, and this fright is usually accompanied by clinging behavior. Very frequently he finds himself compulsively talking and obsessively ruminating. This phase is followed by apathy with periods of recrimination and inner-directed rage. There are occasional outbursts of outer-directed resentment and anger until resolution occurs through either replacement or restoration of the lost object. This description of the psychological response to sudden and unexpected loss is easily recognizable as the same phases seen in depression. This concept is of clinical value in the psychological treatment of victims. What has the victim of violence lost? It is more than just the loss of money and the loss of physical functioning.They have lost their trust in society, which they have depended on to protect them from harm. Many have lost their self-respect when they view their compliant behavior with shame, and they have gained the unenviable status of being a victim. For some individuals, particularly conforming and dependent ones, there is prolongation of one or more phases of the victim reaction just described. Some victims remain for months in the phase of fright with clinging behavior. Extra locks, extra precautions, and excessive suspiciousness substitute for judgment. They cling to their family and obsessively ruminate about what happened to them. Their family begins to feel that this compulsive talking is bad for them, and they urge the victim to be silent. I have had difficulty getting to talk with some of these victims because of the protective attitude of their families. Yet, when I have managed to talk to the victims, I have found them anxious and eager to talk, and some have mobilized their resources to become less frightened. It seems to me that the mistaken concept of protective silence prolongs the depressive reaction of victims. In this phase of fright of the victim reaction, some report persistent recurrent fantasies or dreams that have a similar theme. The most frequent theme is that the criminal will come back and either kill them or injure them more seriously. Sometimes the victim has a fleeting but recurrent thought of killing the criminal, but this thought is completely submerged by counter-thoughts - what if he fails, or, if he succeeds,
VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
25
won't the criminal's family or friends seek his death in revenge? Other victims try to deny what happened to them. A few days after one man was robbed, he thought he recognized the robber. The man he suspected was working in a store where the victim rarely shopped. The victim walked away and later could neither remember what store the suspected man worked in nor on which street the store was located. When I asked him what he was shopping for he angrily refused to continue to talk about the incident. Other individuals have a prolonged period of apathy with inner- and outer-directed rage. The loss of feelings of invulnerability, the disillusionment in society's ability to protect him from harm quite often intensify his feelings of resentment and anger. Commonly heard expressions in this phase are: "The hell with people, who needs them. You got to look out for yourself. People are animals. The world is a jungle. No one gives a damn." A woman victim said: "What hurt me the most was the complete indifference and lack of consideration for my feelings in my hour of need by people I know and work with." There are also frequent comments attacking police behavior. Police make an ideal scapegoat because of their traditional policy of keeping silent when attacked. When one suffers an injury from a criminal one is a victim of a crime. When society responds by ignoring, excluding, and in addition accusing the victim of participating in the criminal act, he then becomes a victim of society. This paradoxical attitude of society causes the victim to feel isolated and helpless and to experience the world as hostile. This response has been defined by Karen Horney 9 as basic anxiety. It produces profound adaptive and defensive patterns which form the core of the chronic psychological responses of victims. Any measure the community employs that reduces the victim's feelings of isolation, aloneness, and helplessness will also reduce his secondary psychological trauma. The growing awareness that anyone can be vulnerable to crimes of violence has caused the community to be more genuinely sympathetic to the *ictim. However, one segment of society that the victim must come in contact with, as a result of his misfortune, seems to lag behind in this growing sympathy and empathy.This is the criminal justice system. Judges, prosecutors, the legal profession, and the police still are somewhat removed from the personal plight of victims. I recently spoke to a judge about victims and he said: "You know, I never really thought about it. My concern was always the application of the law. I thought of the criminal act and what to do about the criminal, but not the victim." This diffident attitude toward victims is derived from the legal model, which is based on the adversary principle. A case is won not by the truth but by the better argument pro or con. The victim's plight is exploited or attacked when the adversary principle of law is applied. It would require another paper, and a long one at that, to fully discuss the psychological trauma victims receive from all aspects of the administration of criminal justice. Although the public cannot change the entire legal system, they can substantially influence the police. The police are usually the first to encounter the victim, generally after the crime has been committed and the criminal gone. Police attitudes can be
26
MARTIN SYMONDS
quite crucial in reducing the victim's acute psychological trauma and can also help prevent the debilitating secondary trauma most victims undergo. From personal experience I know the police are sensitive to criticism and resent anyone telling them how to do their work. But police do have a high regard for professionals and they are receptive to ideas that will improve their ability to be of help to the public. If we in the helping professions support the idea that victims need psychological help, the police, who are in a unique position to administer psychological first aid, will turn to us for advice. In conclusion, victims want something from society for the injuries they received. They have suffered loss of money, sometimes severe and permanent physical injuries, their self-respect has been damaged, their illusions of trust that the community will protect them from harm have been shattered. They cannot get anything back from the criminal. Society's usual response to violent crime is to become outraged against the criminal. There is an outcry for more stringent law and calls for more police. There are demands for retribution and punishment. Little of this is helpful to the victim. Revenge and retribution will not heal the victim's psychological wounds. What is needed is a wholehearted, sympathetic and empathetic response from the community toward the victim. A woman who was mugged sent me a letter in which she described what happened to her and what she would like done. I could do no better than to end this paper by quoting her: " I t is not that the victim wishes to wallow in self-pity: it is that at such a crucial time - a very frightening experience at least and one that could have resulted in the victim's being actually killed or seriously h u r t - t h a t such a person should immediately be given the same moral support, and words of comfort and caring, that you would give one who has just lost a loved one."
REFERENCES 1. Von Hentig, H. The Criminaland His Victim. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948. 2. Schafer, S. The Victim and His Criminal. New York: Random House, 1968. 3. Mulvihill and Tumin. "Crimes of Violence." In National Commission on Causes and Prevention o f Violence, vol. 2. U.S. Government Printing Office. 4. Fooner, M. "Victim Induced Criminality." Science 153: (1966) 1080-1083. 5. Abrahamson, D. The Psychology of Crime. New York: John Wiley, 1960. 6. Mendelson, B. "Victimology and the Needs of Contemporary Society." The Israel Annals of Psychiatry 2:(1973) 189-198. 7. O'Hara, C. E. Fundamentals o f Criminal Investigation. Springfield, Illinois: Charles Thomas, 1970. 8. de Celle, ]. How to Keep Crime From Happening To You, The Safety Strategy. Joseph Rank, 1971. 9. Homey, Karen. Our Inner Conflicts. New York: Norton, 1945.
Reprint requests to 137 E. 36th Street, New York, N.Y. 10016
