Criminals can be victims too: An interview with victimologist Sanjeev P Sahni

In the criminal justice system, however, the focus is rarely on the survivor, says behavioural scientist Sanjeev P Sahni, also founder and principal director of the Jindal Institute of Behavioural Sciences (JIBS), Sonipat. “The focus is almost exclusively on the criminal and the crime. And this is a problem. Because surviving victims are then treated primarily as witnesses, instead of being treated as stakeholders in the process of justice delivery.”

In July, Sahni took office as vice-president of the World Society of Victimology (WSV), an international NGO headquartered in Germany that focuses on advancing research in the field. Excerpts from an interview.

How did you become interested in victimology?

I grew up in the small town of Kandaghat in Himachal Pradesh, where I began to study society and psychology, and began to view women construction workers there as the primary victims of poverty and of an unequal society. Then, as a criminal psychologist, I encountered rape survivors and felt all over again that the onus on these women was too great. I was moved by the challenges they faced, within the criminal justice system as well as after a trial was over. I wanted to conduct research in the field of victimology to understand how we as a society could better empower victims, making them stakeholders in the justice system, rather than mere witnesses.

The role of the victim has changed significantly, hasn’t it, since the early democracies of Ancient Greece?

In ancient times, the idea of victimhood was focused on the principle of Lex talionis, or the law of retaliation; an eye for an eye. Victims were permitted to seek revenge for a crime. As new codes and laws were introduced from the Middle Ages (5th to 15th centuries) on, the onus of action shifted from the victim to the state. But the criminal justice system doesn’t cater to the needs of the victim — the needs for fair representation at trial, a non-stigmatised life after trial, rehabilitation, even suitable legal aid. Ignoring any of these processes re-victimises the victim and reflects a lack of empathy about the harm done to them.

What is changing, in the field of victimology?

New areas of victimology are emerging, such as green victimology (environmental harm that affects an individual in a physical, emotional, mental or financial capacity). There are efforts being made to recognise or acknowledge identity-based or community-based abuse across generations (transgenerational victimology, predicated on aspects such as caste, tribal status, race).

What change would you like to see when it comes to victimology?

As a society, I think it’s important to acknowledge that a criminal can be a victim too. In 2010, I attended a conference hosted by the World Society of Victimology in Mito, Japan, where I presented a paper on terrorists being victims who create more victims, which sparked an interesting debate. Few people agreed with me, but these are discussions we need to have.

Another change I would like to see is victimology treated as an independent discipline, rather than an offshoot of criminology. In Israel, victimologists are trained across the disciplines of sociology, psychology and social work, and run clinics where people can seek aid.

You speak of prison reform as a vital aspect too…

I have visited prisons across India in the course of my research, and I have found that, once in prison, criminals seem to exchange the information they came in with for information on how to commit crimes more effectively. There simply needs to be a lot more focus on psychological support and sensitive rehabilitation into society once they have served their sentences.