Criminology

Whenever an individual is charged with a criminal offence, what are of concern to the magistrate are the acts, intentions and circumstances of the victim and the offender. In other words, the judge seeks to capture the morality of the acting agent so as to determine if hisher actions are legal and legitimate. Crime and morality are fundamentally intertwined since crime is nothing but morality.

The case of Ryan Allyn Mcculloch is nothing but a moral problem. The dynamics of the case require a rigorous moral judgment in relation to human acts. It can be seen from the case that judge Cuthbertson declares the defendant guilty for his reckless driving. The judge exercises leniency to the defendant, but still sentences him to jail for a period of two years and eight months and not for three years and six months due to the defendants pleas of guilt. The judge literally says that due to the defendants pleas of guilt, he legitimately avoids giving a ruling as per the draconian provisions of s.32 (5) (ba) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act which requires a non-parole period of four-fifths of the head sentence. He sentences the defendant pursuant to s. 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act.

The essence of the case is that Ryan Allayn McCulloch pleads guilty for causing death by dangerous use of a vehicle. It was noted that Ryan was driving intoxicated, with an alcohol concentration of greater than .08 g per 100 ml of blood. This study seeks to give a critical analysis to this case guided by Wallers effects of crime Blocks theory about a criminal event and the states view of the role of victims in sentencing offenders. Some of the arguments for and against the use of victim impact statements in the context of this case will be discussed. The challenges and benefits of incorporating restorative justice practices with traditional punitive sentences within the context of this case will also be discussed.

Wallers Effects of Crime
In the case of Ryan it can be considered as a case of victimization. Von Hentig notes that many crime victims are responsible for their own victimization by either inciting or provoking the criminal or by providing favorable circumstances to the commission of the crime (Fattah 2000). It is also asserted that victims may be responsible for their victimization due to carelessness, recklessness or imprudence, consciously or unconsciously (Fattah 2000).

It is worthwhile to spend sometime in trying to understand the meaning of victimization. Victimization can imply cheating, tricking, defrauding, assaulting or robbing. However, broadly speaking, victimization can be termed as the process of causing injury, harm and loss to others. From this understanding the case of Ryan is indeed, within the scope of victimization.  As mentioned earlier, his reckless driving due to intoxication led to the loss of lives of others. It is believed that victimology only covers victims of crime, what one would call penal victimology. Mandelson (1956) says that victimology ought to encompass victims of accidents, natural disasters, human rights violations, oppression and discrimination, and government corruption just to mention a few. According to other scholars, victimology should go beyond victims of crime but specialize more on victimization caused by human actions. In this sense victims of accidents and natural disasters are not considered.

It is important to note that the cause of victimization could be natural or as a result of the human action or could be caused by misfortune including crime. So, Ryans case revolves around the whims of victimology due to the following reasons the judge weighs the variables in the event that would have altered the undesired results the judge considers all parties involved including the victims of the accident the judge dwells much on the cause and what precipitated the crime, for instance, use of alcohol by Ryan and there is an invitation to restitution and compensation.

All are victims of crime, either directly or indirectly. If a person is the object of a crime then she can be regarded as the direct or primary victim. However, if partners or family members or close friends whose quality of life is endangered as a result of their loved ones (primary victims), then they can be regarded as the indirect victims or secondary victims. Note once again that secondary victims imply those who are psychologically or emotionally attached to the primary victim. It can be argued further that there are tertiary victims, where this refers to the broader community. For instance, citizens get information about the suffering of others through media and this subjects them to vicarious suffering and anxiety.

Therefore, the impact of Ryans reckless driving does not as such invite the notion of direct victimization but, it inclines more on indirect victimization. It is clear that Ryan is accused of driving carelessly under the influence of alcohol and two, because his recklessness led others to lose their lives. It is unfair to say that Ryan intended to cause the accident or to kill the people around him. Evidently, the judge notes a deep sense of contrition in him as to even reduce the required jail term fro such an offence. This, in wider sense, reduces the chances of direct victimization but, the people who died as a result of this accident are direct victims. Of course, the loved ones to the direct victims in this case must have undergone through deep loss and sorrow hence being the indirect victims. Morally speaking, the acts of Ryan in causing the accident are not direct acts but indirect acts. As mentioned earlier, he did not intend to cause the accident, but due to alcohol he caused it. It can be foreseen that driving while drunk is dangerous and risky. It is because of this fact that Ryans act of committing the accident remains an indirect voluntary act.

Situational Theories
The Lifestyle Model developed by Hindelang, Gottfredson and Garofalo
(1978) is considered to be one of the first and most important models explaining the differential risks of victimization (Fattah 2000). The main proposition of this model is that lifestyle is related to the risk of becoming a victim of certain crime. In other words, the activities in which we engage, both vocational activities (work, school, home duties et cetera) and leisure activities will influence whether we become victims. For example, smokers are believed to be more prone to cancerous diseases, particularly lung cancer or a person who spends prolonged periods of time basking in the sun without sunscreen may increase their risk of skin cancer. As applies to Ryan, it is believed that a person who drives under the influence of alcohol increases their risk of injury.

There are attempts to reconcile lifestyle theory and victimization. There are several conditions that must be met for personal victimization to occur. The offender and the victim must have opportunity to intersect in time and space there has to be some sought of dispute or claim between the offender and the victim the offender must be willing and able to threaten or use force in order to achieve the desired end and finally, the offender must view the circumstances as advantageous to attain the desired end. 
It is stated that lifestyle is related to the probability of these conditions being met. Furthermore this model highlights that the risk of becoming a victim is more evident in particular places at particular times under certain circumstances such as whether a person is alone or not. The model also asserts that it occurs disproportionately among victims and offenders who have some prior connectionrelationship and offenders with particular demographic characteristics. Lifestyle directly affects the probability of victimization since it relates to whether we will be in particular places at particular times, under particular circumstances, interacting with particular kinds of persons, lifestyle affects the probability of victimization.

Looking at the essential tenets of this theory, there is big dissimilarity with the case of Ryan. Now, the case of Ryan is simply reckless driving and alcohol, period The leniency conferred to him by the judge makes it clear that what happened was merely unintended accident. There is no purported intersection no disputes between Ryan and the victims no use of force and finally Ryan does not seem to have intended the undesired results. It is clear that he was under the influence of alcohol. On the contrary, there are some fundamental cultural backgrounds that would not take lightly the implications of the lifestyle theory. In Australia, it will not be taken lightly by the so called hoon drivers whenever one tries to deprive of them their driving license. This also extends to the so called boy racers in the case of England. They have attached greater value to their driving license they consider it a right that cannot be violated whatsoever. Therefore, in the case where the judge orders Ryan to surrender his driving license for a period of ten years would not be taken so easily. It is tantamount to denying Ryan his right to life.
According to Richard Block (1981) a criminal event has got three components namely the victim or target the offender, and the environment. The situational factors involved in the event of the commission of crime can be spilt into micro and macro environments.  The former encompasses features such as the social relationships, availability of weapons, physical structures, and the immediate network of events. While in the latter, it encompasses the history of the social relationships, dangers, ideas of violence, social class, economic and community structures and segregation (Block 1981). In the context of the criminal event, the distinctiveness of both the victim and the offender remains intact and therefore, the actions and resulting consequences can never be fully predicted. The perceptions of the offender and of the victim involved in the crime event bring about another dimension to the interaction.

The Role of Victims
It is believed that they were first used in California, USA in 1974. Their use has grown widely in different states. South Australia was the first Australian state to provide administratively and legislatively for the use of victim impact statements in sentencing courts. Every state and territory in Australia now allows victim impact information, that is, the effect of a crime from a victims perspective, to be furnished to assist in sentencing. In those moments when there is the sentencing process, it is important that the court considers certain range of factors together with circumstances of the victim and the circumstances surrounding the victim. This kind of information is acquired during the life span of the case and before a court passes sentence.

Section 10 of the Victims of Crime Act 2001 and Section 7A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 facilitate a victims entitlement to have the impact of the offence considered by a sentencing court. It is believed that the victim impact statement should not be entrusted to officers on probation, but it would be worthwhile in involving the police in its preparation. A sentencing court ought to consider the circumstances of the victims of the offence or any loss or injury resulting from the offence.

It is believed that active victim participation in the criminal justice system may alter the desired fairness in the due process of the law. Their participation is seen by many as a major victory for victims and their advocates. On the other hand, it is believed that victim impact statement have done less to augment the criminal justice response to victims. The most crucial focus should be on victims services and victim support. It is impressive that the judge in the case of Ryan passed a fair verdict which favored the victims.

Victim Impact Statements
A victim impact statement is a very vital document since it gives a chance to the victim to express to the court and the offender how the crime affects himher. This information on the effects of the crime committed against the victim becomes very useful in fact it is taken into account when considering the sentencing of the convicted person. However, one is not obliged to produce a victim impact system if she is not willing. It remains a free choice for the offender at all times. It can assist the court in ordering the convicted person to settle some compensation. The offender may also be entitled to Criminal Injuries Compensation, which is somewhat separate from the process of hisher case in court. The statement contained in this document becomes a very strong tool in expressing ones plight such that it can be reported in media. This only happens if the court reads it out.

Victim impact statements make the legal process more focused without unnecessary delays or additional expenses it does not aggravate existing problems within the criminal justice system it has facilitated quality processes of justice especially as perceived by the victims of injustices it assists the courts together with the prosecutors, in resolving compensation issues it does not interfere or alter the courts verdict, although at some point, it can hasten the likelihood of prison sentence and it provides the judges with objective in formation which they find useful in the administration of justice to the offenders

Victim Impact Statement increases effectiveness of sentencing   the process becomes more democratic and points to the communitys desires it recognizes the wishes of the victim and promotes their dignity it nurtures cooperation with the criminal justice system it ensures proportionality and accuracy in sentencing it ensures fairness since the offender is giving time and opportunity to defend himself. This can be seen from Ryans case as he was granted opportunity to explain his situation. This is what law experts refer to as habeas corpus. It cannot be purported that the victims were not happy with the judges verdict.

Victims Impact Statement may undermine the courts insulation from unacceptable public pressure may substitute the victims subjective dispositions for the objective one practiced by the court it attracts a sense of inconsistency and disparity in sentencing it hinders smooth flow of cases without delays and additional expenses for an already overburdened system it makes the law take account of the harm done by the victim in definition of crime it leaves the victims with the feeling that their needs have not been adequately addressed it makes the offender succumb to rights deprivation and retributive and repressive instances it can personalize the concerns of the state and hence fail to address the common good and finally it may lead to the exploitation of the victims anguish.

Compensation or restitution involves making up for or making amends for a debt, a loss or an injury. It involves giving compensation for loss, damage or injury caused.  However, compensation is when the state provides money andor assistance, whereas restitution connotes an offender restoring a victim. Now, looking at restorative justice to a case whereby an offender is accused of taking life of a victim, like in the case of Ryan, it appears a bit absurd. If restorative justice implies restoring a victim, then it cannot be possible for those victims who have died out of the offenders malice.   Such restoration can only occur in the material aspect of it like clearing a debt or fixing a mechanical failure. Otherwise, matters of life are beyond human restoration. In cases where a victim has died only divine means can restore the situation.

Conclusion
In deed, there is need to distinguish the distinction between criminology and victimization. Normally, people do confuse criminology for victimization and victimization for criminology. The judicial system should be well versed with these two concepts since their legal implications are very different. I believe that cases of victimization should never be treated as if the were crimes and the vice versa. I believe that the penal code of any state considers such proceedings very different in approach. The Lifestyle theory somewhat, serves as the most used theory in the legal system since it hypothetically prohibits certain human inclinations. The law, by virtue of the fact that it is supposed to limit or regulate, finds itself conditioning people in given circumstances. For instance, like one should not drive while under the influence of alcohol. Restorative justice is possible in cases where there is material loss. In those instances where the offender destroys the life of another, like killing, it is had to fix such thing to normalcy.