ABSTRACT
Despite the current political preoccupation, and perceived consensus with, rebalancing the criminal justice system to take better account of the victim of crime, it is easy to forget that the concept of victim, understanding the nature of criminal victimisation, and even measuring victimisation, are hotly contested issues. As Garland and Sparks (2000) have commented, a concern with and for the victim of crime has become not just a symbolic reference point but also a dominant one. This reference point has been made all the more poignant and impactive in recent years with the graphic media coverage given to (crime) victims and victimisation. That coverage ranging as it does from victims of natural disasters to victims of terrorist attacks, to more mundane and routine, though nonetheless harmful events, such as burglary, rape and murder, has arguably contributed to the drive to rebalance the criminal justice system in the victim’s favour. Yet, in the midst of such media coverage and political preoccupations, real and harmful things do happen to people. What is of interest to those (and others) who claim the label of victimologist, is the changing nature of how such ‘things’ have been articulated, responded to, and by whom. While on the one hand the publication of a volume of this kind stands as testimony to the extent to which victims and victimisation have become an increasing source of political, policy, and academic concern, on the other hand it also evidences that the way in which that concern has unfolded, especially in recent decades, is neither simple nor straightforward. The chapters in this volume evidence some of this complexity. Before going on to consider that complexity, it is of value to consider some of the key moments of change in this rising concern with (criminal) victimisation.
