After the Crime: Victim Decision Making.

• Author: Wallace, Harvey

By Martin S. Greenberg and R. Barry Ruback. Plenum Press 1992. Pp. 293.

Professors Greenberg and Ruback's book, After the Crime: Victim Decision Making, examines the various aspects of the crime victim's decision-making process.(1) After the Crime is a concise, well-written book which documents new research on the effects of external factors on victim behavior, offers insight into the identification abilities of victim eyewitnesses, and provides a theoretical model for understanding the process of victim decision-making. Prosecutors may find chapter four, entitled "Eyewitness Identification by Theft Victims," of particular interest and value, as defense attorneys will undoubtedly use it during trials.

Chapter one introduces the subject of victims and their decision-making processes by examining victimization as a social problem, victim reaction to crime, and the purpose and strategy of research on victim decision-making. The chapter provides a brief overview of the victims' movement(2) in the United States, including a discussion of various organizations that deal with crime victims.(3) To their credit, the authors do not define terms according to their own discipline. Rather, they set forth a broad and comprehensive definition of victimization as "a multidisciplinary endeavor involving contributions from criminology and sociology, psychology, social work, nursing and psychiatry."(4) The authors analyze victim reaction to crime from a psychological perspective and focus on the victim's decision of whether or not to report the crime to authorities.

Chapter two covers the experiments conducted by the authors involving a simulated theft of money from a "victim." The authors placed a newspaper advertisement requesting clerical assistance, to which they received over one thousand responses.(5) After eliminating some participants for failure to follow directions or suspected knowledge about the experiment, the researchers set up their "crime" with the remaining 768 valid subjects. The researchers paid the participants the money promised them in the newspaper advertisement for completing certain administrative work, and then informed the participants that they would receive an additional sum of money--either twenty or three dollars depending on their productivity--which would be measured by the amount of completed work they turned in. This additional work was subsequently stolen from them by a confederate posing as another participant. The confederate turned in the extra work and received the money which should have gone to the participant.(6)

The experiment involved the loss or "theft" of either three dollars or twenty dollars. Most citizens probably consider such a loss to be a fairly minor crime, which may have influenced the participant's decision of whether or not to report the theft. The participants were unaware of the nature of the study until the conclusion of the experiment.(7)

The researchers monitored and recorded each victim's reactions and responses, and then introduced variables to produce different reactions, These reactions became the basis of the authors' conclusions regarding victim decision-making processes.(8)

Greenberg and Ruback selected the crime of theft as the basis of the experiment for valid reasons. First, theft is one of the most frequently reported crimes in the United States.(9) Second, they could avoid inflicting the stress that might accompany a violent offense.(10)

The authors conducted follow-up surveys regarding identification of the suspect several months after the "crime."

The authors were careful to avoid exposing the subjects to unduly high levels of emotional distress during the experiment. However, they failed to fully discuss the ethics of using individuals unaware of the true intent behind the simulated crime. Unfortunately, the authors wait until the Appendix to discuss a lawsuit filed against them by one of the participants, who claimed that the researchers were negligent, and in the alternative asserted that their acts intentionally caused her to suffer emotional distress because of the experiment.(11)

Although the lawsuit was dismissed on a motion for directed verdict,(12) it raises issues regarding potential liability for all researchers utilizing human subjects. All experimental studies must consider the ethics of the research and evaluate any potential liability. Issues such as liability for research, informed consent, and ethics should have been discussed in more detail in earlier chapters.

Greenberg and Ruback next examine the effect of different variables on the decision-making process of victims. In a series of studies, they introduce different factors into the experiment and review the various forces to determine which variables, if any, influenced the victim's decision to report the crime.

In one study, the authors examine social and emotional factors in victim decision-making, considering whether advice from bystanders or the level of the victim's anger...