Twenty-five Years of Victims Research in Canada

By Jo-Anne Wemmers, Ph.D.

In 2000, I began working as a professor of victimology at the École de criminologie, Université de Montréal. That same year, Montreal hosted the 10th International Victimology Symposium, which brought together experts from across Canada and around the world, and the Policy Centre for Victim Issues was created under the Victims of Crime Initiative. Over the past 25 years, victimological research has evolved significantly. As the renowned Canadian victimologist Professor Ezzat Fattah (2022) reminds us, victimology is not social work but a social science that is centred on victims and victimizations. As I will illustrate in this article, advances in victimological research have made it increasingly evident that multiple victimization is key to crime prevention. Drawing on these developments, I will argue that supporting victims is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic investment in crime prevention and public safety.

Research

As an academic who has been researching victimology for decades, I have witnessed substantial achievements in victim-related research in Canada. A key tool for understanding victimization is the General Social Survey (GSS) on Victimization, conducted every five years by Statistics Canada, which asks Canadians about their experiences with victimization in the last year. Unlike police statistics, this data is not limited to victims who report the incident to police so it provides important insight into the experiences of victims who do not report their victimization to police. Thanks to victimization surveys, we now have a better understanding of the patterns of victimization, particularly multiple victimization, which refers to those who have experienced more than one victimization incident. This can involve repeated occurrences of the same crime (e.g., multiple assaults) or different types of victimization (e.g., sexual violence and personal theft). Experiencing three or more different types of victimization is referred to as polyvictimization (Finkelhor et al. 2007; Cyr et al. 2013). The effects of trauma are cumulative. Polyvictimization is associated with higher levels of trauma than any single form of victimization, such as sexual violence (Finkelhor et al. 2007; Cyr et al. 2013). Thus, a person who experiences what may seem, objectively, to be a minor crime may experience considerable trauma if, for example, they are still struggling with the trauma caused by previous victimizations.

Moreover, experiencing victimization increases a person’s risk of being victimized again in the future (Perreault, Sauvé, and Burns 2010; Herman 2010). The consequences of victimization, such as trauma, anxiety, and dissociation, can make individuals more vulnerable and an attractive target for motivated criminals. If left unadressed, victimization may create a negative spiral in which a person becomes increasingly vulnerable and in need of support. As a result of being victimized multiple times, a small part of the population experiences a lot of crime (Herman, 2010). For example, Canadians who reported having been the victim of more than one violent crime in the previous 12 months represented only 2 percent of the population but had experienced 60 percent of all violent crimes (Perreault, Sauvé, and Burns 2010).

For practical and ethical reasons, the GSS on Victimization is limited to people age 15 years and older, meaning that children’s experiences of victimization often remain hidden. However, in recent years, the victimization survey has asked respondents whether they had experienced violence before the age of 15. While this question provides no insight into the volume of victimization currently experienced by children under 15 years of age in Canada, it does help us to understand the impact of victimization and how it boosts a person’s risk of being victimized again in the future. Childhood maltreatment, including sexual and physical abuse, witnessing violence in the home, harsh parenting, and neglect during childhood increases the likelihood of experiencing violent victimization as an adult (Cotter 2021). Risk factors associated with victimization, such as mental health problems, addictions, and experiencing periods of homelessness, may be the result of previous experiences of victimization (Cotter 2021). Intersectionality reminds us that these factors have cumulative effects, rendering individuals increasingly vulnerable (Crenshaw 2013). The impact of victimization, especially during childhood, emphasizes the importance of ensuring access to adequate victim support to promote healing.

While victimization surveys have been conducted in Canada regularly since the 1980s, it is only recently that the survey has included the territories. It now covers the whole country. The territories are home to many Indigenous peoples and expanding the survey has revealed that Indigenous Peoples in Canada have experienced high levels of victimization. For example, Indigenous women’s risk of violent victimization is three times higher than for non-Indigenous women in Canada (Perreault 2022). For years, Indigenous communities have decried the high levels of victimization Indigenous Peoples have experienced. However, in the absence of data, their calls for action were not always heard. The survey now provides more complete information on victimization in Canada. Its findings draw our attention to the need to address structural violence, the structural factors rooted in society and public institutions that increase the risk of victimization, such as that experienced by Indigenous Peoples (Cotter 2022).

The victimization survey also provides insight into whether victims report their victimization to police and why. Most victims in Canada do not report their victimization to police. In 2019, only 29 percent of victims said that they had reported their incident to police, down considerably from 37 percent in 1999 (Cotter 2021; Wemmers 2017b). The reporting rate is even lower for certain types of victimization, such as sexual violence: only 6 percent of incidents in 2019 came to the attention of police (Cotter 2021). Not reporting the incident to police may decrease public safety as well as the victim’s own safety. Reporting to police is associated with fewer future victimizations (Ranapurwala, Berg and Casteel 2016). This may be because police intervened or because victims have better access to support services when they report a crime to police.

Rights and Services

Multiple victimization highlights the government’s responsibility to ensure that victims across Canada have access to adequate assistance to promote healing and reduce their risk of being revictimized. Canada prides itself on having national health care, and while our system is not perfect, victims can receive treatment if they sustain physical injuries. However, when victims sustain psychological injuries, accessing adequate help can be difficult because mental health is not included in our healthcare system, and community-based victim support services are generally underfunded and overstretched (Zota et al. in press). Victim compensation programs are critical in ensuring victims can access support services, such as prescription drugs, physiotherapy, and counselling. These programs first emerged in Canada in the late 1960s, and by 1992 they had been established in all provinces and territories (Wemmers 2021). However, the federal government discontinued cost-sharing for these programs in 1993, prompting provinces and territories to scale back or eliminate their compensation programs. No longer able to afford their programs, Newfoundland-Labrador and the territories terminated them.

Since 2000, the federal government has introduced two new compensation programs for specific groups of victims, but nothing for victims of crime in general. In 2007, the federal government introduced Financial Assistance for Canadians Victimized Abroad, which offers limited financial assistance to Canadians victimized abroad and their families. In 2013, it introduced the Federal Income Support for Parents of Murdered or Missing Children. This benefit operates like Employment Insurance. It offers income support to parents and legal guardians who have lost income from taking time off work to cope with the death or disappearance of their child or children because of a probable Criminal Code offence. While these new federal programs are available across the country, overall access to victim compensation programs is only available in nine of the 13 jurisdictions. As a result, Canada no longer meets the basic standards and norms of the United Nations for victims of crime and abuse of power (Wemmers 2021; 2024). Not having access to such programs poses a major challenge for victims, who otherwise may be unable to obtain the services they need to support their healing. Knowing that victims are at increased risk of being revictimized creates an obligation on society, in particular governments, to prevent multiple victimization and invest in victim services.

Victims’ reluctance to engage in the criminal justice system and report the incident to police further complicates the issue. People who have experienced victimization tend to have less confidence in police than those who have not (Cotter 2021). When they do engage with the criminal justice system, victims are often disappointed and disillusioned and surprised at how little they matter in the criminal justice process (Herman 2003). Victims seek recognition and support in that process but have been, and in many respects still are, the forgotten party. They often look to the public prosecutor to represent their interests, but the public prosecutor is not the victim’s lawyer; they represent the state. When victims are met with unsympathetic reactions and are not supported, they experience secondary victimization (Wemmers 2017b). Secondary victimization hinders healing, increases victims’ anxiety and slows down their recovery (Wemmers 2013).

Since 2000, several attempts have been made to improve the legal status of victims in Canada and give them enforceable rights. Following the ingenious ruling by Justice Gerald Day of the Ontario Court of Justice in 1999 that rights without remedy are not rights, and that “the Legislature did not intend for the Victims Bill of Rights to provide rights to the victims of crime,”Footnote 4 (Chwialkowska 1999), in 2003, the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of justice endorsed a revised version of the 1988 Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime. The new Canadian statement matched most of the contents of the previous one, except that it no longer included the requirement for victims to cooperate with judicial authorities, nor did it contain any more details about recourse than the 1988 statement. It merely embodied a list of good intentions for victims without providing them any real rights. In 2015, the federal government introduced the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (CVBR). Unlike previous Canadian statements, the CVBR includes a section on remedies (s. 25–26). However, it stops short of providing victims with enforceable rights (Campbell 2015). Enforceable rights could effectively change Canada’s legal culture, which has resisted making space for victims (Young and Dhanjal 2021). Once victims have rights with recourse, they can hire a legal representative to represent their interests and ensure that their rights are respected. Currently, except in cases involving third-party records and sexual history motions in sexual assault trials, victims are neither parties to nor participants in the criminal justice process. Victims value prevention and when they do report their experiences to police, it is often in hopes of stopping it from happening again, either to themselves or others (Cotter 2021; Ranapurwala, Berg and Casteel 2016). Treating victims with respect for their rights can help to promote healing and restore confidence in the criminal justice system (Wemmers and Cyr 2006; Wemmers et al. 2013).

Besides criminal prosecutions, it is important to consider restorative justice (RJ) for victims as well. Over the past three decades, I have studied RJ through a victims’ lens and observed its fluctuating popularity, depending on politics and resourcing. Some provinces, such as Nova Scotia and Quebec, have categorically excluded sexual violence cases from RJ programs. Fuelled by the #MeToo movement, which highlighted the ineffectiveness of the criminal justice system in response to sexual violence, interest in victim-centred restorative practices has grown (Nelund 2015; Wemmers 2017a; Parent et al. 2022; Burnett and Gray 2023). Restorative practices (RP) refer to a broad category of programs, which include elements of RJ. Victims who participate in RP are generally very satisfied (Van Camp 2014; Wemmers et al. 2022). While restorative practices have the potential to meet many victims’ needs, such as recognition, and promoting healing, some victimologists have expressed concern that RJ risks using victims to serve its own objectives much like the criminal justice system does (Green 2006). Governments often create RJ programs to reduce the caseload in the courts (i.e., diversion programs). This puts victims at risk of being used to achieve criminal justice goals, not victims’ goals. For example, these programs will select cases based on criminal justice selection criteria rather than victims’ expressed needs. RJ is not a panacea and when it is used to meet the needs of the justice system, rather than address victims’ needs, it replicates many of the problems victims already face in the criminal justice system, such as secondary victimization. Victim-centred means disentangling victims’ needs from other “interested parties,” while respecting the rights of all those concerned (Green 2006; Hughes 2024). Victim-centred RP focus on healing or repairing the harm done to victims and their relationships with others (Van Camp 2014; Wemmers 2017b). Victim-centred RP, thus, are not just another tool in the criminal justice toolkit, but a tool for victim support (Van Camp and Wemmers, 2016; Llewellyn et al., 2015).

Research on trauma has made tremendous progress as well. Not only victims but also professionals working with them – such as victim support workers, as well as police and public prosecutors – are at risk of developing trauma. They can experience psychological distress as a result of their work and, in severe cases, can be traumatized and suffer post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Leclerc et al. 2019). Secondary traumatic stress (STS) occurs when individuals are repeatedly exposed to the aversive details of traumatic experiences of others (Brend 2014). Trauma-informed law argues that legal practitioners and systems should be aware of the impact of trauma on human behaviour, including its impact on memory and recall of events, to not exacerbate victims’ suffering and re-traumatize or revictimize them (Haskell and Randall 2019). Trauma-informed approaches pursue two overarching goals: 1) putting the traumatic experience of the client at the heart of the lawyer’s concerns, which reduces victims’ risk of secondary victimization and improves their confidence in the administration of justice (Paulson et al. 2023; Haskell and Randall 2019); 2) drawing the lawyer’s attention to their own experience of trauma, whether direct or vicarious. Early recognition and intervention can help prevent PTSD and foster resilience (Brend 2014).

Looking Forward

Victimological research has progressed significantly in the past 25 years. Victimization surveys like the GSS have provided us with a better understanding of the risks of victimization, in particular, multiple victimization. The impact of victimization, especially during childhood, can heighten a person’s vulnerability, emphasizing the importance of ensuring access to adequate victim support. However, the survey should be conducted more frequently than every five years – for example, every two years – and should include a juvenile victimization survey for children and youth. This would further improve our understanding of patterns and trends in victimization and allow policy makers to react more quickly to changes.

Gaps in access to victim support services remain a pressing concern. Victim compensation programs provide essential funding to pay for professional counselling services, but they are not available to all victims across the country. Multiple victimization draws our attention to society’s obligation to protect victims. This means investing in victims’ rights and services. Addressing existing gaps in access to services is critical to promoting victims’ healing, reducing their vulnerability, and preventing them from being re-victimized in the future. Supporting victims not only fulfills governments’ moral obligation to victims but also serves as a strategic investment in crime prevention and public safety.

Public safety extends beyond the criminal prosecution of offenders to include prevention. Reducing multiple victimization can significantly decrease crime rates in Canada. However, further research is needed to better understand the relationship between multiple victimization, factors embedded in society and public institutions that increase a person’s risk of victimization, and the role of victim support. Next, we need to apply this knowledge to alleviate suffering, prevent revictimization, and improve public safety.

In my current role as Vice-President of the World Society of Victimology, I am excited that Montreal will once again host the International Victimology Symposium in 2027. This event presents a valuable opportunity for Canada to showcase its expertise in victimological research on the global stage.

References