The state as a victim of crime

20 (1988) 21 ANZJ Crim

THE STATE AS A VICTIM OF CRIMEArie Freiberg*

Neglect of the study of collectivities as victims of crime, in particular of the state, has been amajor lacuna in victimological research. This article examines the role of the state both as asurrogate and direct victim of crime, focussing on the harm suffered by the state as a victim ofwhite-collar crime. The nature of such harm is examined, as are some of the victimogenicfactors which result in the state being probably the most frequent victim of crime.

Victimology as a distinct field of study is now into its fourth decade, yet theconceptualization of the notion of "victim" remains in a primitive state (Burt, 1983).To date, attention has been focused almost exclusively upon the individual asvictim, with only passing reference to the victimization of organizations (cf Reiss,1981; Reiss, 1985; Schneider, 1982:12; Johnson and Wasielewski, 1982:207).Research on collective victims of crime, be they associations, corporations,population groups, government organizations or the state itself has been sparse.This "person-centred perspective" (Reiss, 1985:294) has distorted ourunderstanding of both the nature and extent of victimization.

Neglect of the state as victim is, to a degree, understandable. The plight of thestate does not normally evoke much sympathy. The state does not bleed, nor doesit become aged and frail. Because it is more readily understood as the victimizerrather than victim, analysis along these lines seemed constricted, if not, in someeyes, positively perverse (Ouinney, 1972). Certainly, the problems of the state asvictim seem less pressing than those of the victims of personal violence. Yet eventsover the world in recent years, such as political terrorism in Italy and Germany and,in Australia, tax avoidance and evasion on a massive scale, compel a re-evaluationof the concept of the state as a victim of crime. The study of the state as a victimcreates ambiguities on both the legal and emotional levels. In the former case, thestate as both victim and prosecutor, if not judge, generates a complexity absentwhen an individual is the victim. In the latter case, it remains to be seen whether"fiscal rape" can, or even should, create an emotional context conducive to lawreform.

Collectivities as VictimsThe process of labelling or refusing to label a person or organization as a victim hasmoral, political and legal implications and is as important as the process ofidentifying crime and criminals. A refusal to grant a person or organization victimstatus denies the existence of social or material loss and precludes the initiation ofnormatively vahd responses (Ziegenhagen, 1977:17). Reiss (1985:297) has definedorganizational victimization as follows:

Any organization is victimized when attempts to harm it or actual harm results from actions of its ownmembers or those of others that are illegal under the law. An organization may be victimized by a singleindividual, by another organization, or by collusion or actions among any combination of them,

A major difficulty in according collectivities victim status is the wide variety offorms that coUecivities may take. A collectivity may be loosely or tightly organized,range in number from two to millions, be created by law or be illegal, be formal or

The author is indebted to Dr Peter Grabosky, the Editor of this journal and the anonymous reviewers for theircomments and criticisms of earlier drafts of this article,•Faculty of Law, Monash University, Melbourne,

THE STATE AS A VICTIM OF CRIME 21

informal, public or private, be created for profit or be non-profit, be as readilyidentifiable as a closely held company, as indeterminate as a minority group(Schneider, 1982) or as amorphous as the "international legal system" (Tomlin,1982). An organization can be local, national or international (Reiss, 1985:304).

Taxonomies of victims are plentiful, but have proved heuristically Umited. Sellinand Wolfgang (1964:155-6; Wolfgang and Singer, 1978) for example, created athreefold classification of victimization, primary, secondary and tertiary: "primaryvictimization" referring to individual victims; "secondary victimization" tocommercial establishments, theatres, railroads, department stores and the like,while "tertiary victimization" refers to diffusive victimization that extends to thewider community and includes offences against public order, environmentalpollution or the administration of government. This classification, although it failsto develop the dynamic of the relationships between the categories, especiallybetween the individual and the state as victims, and although it concentrates onform rather than function, is one of the few analyses to organize victims by structurerather than by individual characteristics.

The State as Surrogate VictimHistorically, the individual as victim has played a secondary role. In minimallysocially differentiated societies law tends to be communal. Individual and groupare, for most purposes, indistinguishable. In early English law offences againstindividuals were considered to be offences against the individual's group or clan(Ziegenhagen, 1977:35). Punishment or compensation was sought by and for thecommunity on the basis of collective responsibility:

The golden age of the victim was a part of the Gemeinschaft-type social structure, where socialrelations were familistic, involuntary, primary, sacred, traditional, emotional, personal. (Schäfer,1968:27)

The idea of the state as victim developed slowly and at two distinct levels. On theone hand, the state, personified in the Crown, developed laws to protect the personof the king and his authority. Offences such as treason, sedition and even blasphemywere safeguards of royalty itself. In England, only slowly did Crown and stateseparate and it was not until the 16th century that the word "state" took its placewith "realm", "commonwealth" and "body politic" (Dyson, 1980:37). On the otherhand, the state also emerged as a vicarious or surrogate victim. From Anglo-Saxontimes a range of private disputes was slowly transformed into public disputes as theCrown inexorably extended its power (Greenberg, 1984). The development of theidea of the "King's Peace" was a device whereby the jurisdiction of the royal courtscould be extended. Crimes, as injuries to the state, were one aspect of this process.

The growth of the state and the creation of a separate criminal justice systemcontributed greatly to the decline in the participation of the victim in the legalprocess. The state, by in effect stealing conflicts from victims, excluded them fromthe dispute processing system (Christie, 1977). As crime was increasingly seen as adisturbance of society and less as a violation of the victim's interest, the individualvictim was ignored and left essentially to private legal channels to gaincompensation. Attention increasingly focused on offenders, but even they weresecondary to the interests of the state (Jeffrey, 1957; Hagan, 1983;9-12). AsZiegenhagen notes: "When the state acts as victim surrogate, the interests of thestate predominate over the individual interests of the victim and the offender"(Ziegenhagen, 1977:29).

22 A FREIBERG (1988) 21 ANZJ Crim

The reificafion of the state as vicfim was important for other reasons. First,economic sanctions, transformed from compensation into fines, were re-directedfrom the individual victim to the state. These formed a major part of the nascentstate's revenues. Until recently, the administrafion of criminal law was a fruitful

source of income and not a financial burden (Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939: 10-11;Maitland, 1965:12). Secondly, it was a convenient technique for transformingsectional interests into transcendent ones. The evolution of the rhetoric of the"public good" or the "pubhc welfare" was a useful legitimizing tool. "Theconcepfion of the vicfim as the public establishes a link between the collectiveinterest of society in proscription of certain behaviour and the individual's interestin security from proscribed behaviour" (Ziegenhagen, 1977:7).

Surrogate victimity was first dependent upon the existence of an identifiableindividual victim, but gradually as it developed its ''parens patriae" role it claimedvictim status regardless of, or even despite, the wishes of the individual victim oroffender (Ziegenhagen, 1977:11). "Victimless crimes", where neither the individualnor the state is directly attacked, and where the identification of harm isproblemafic and contentious, are regarded by some as an unnecessary category ofstate victimization. Maintaining victim status against the wishes of the deemedvictim has increased disrespect for the law and has weakened support for stateintervention in other areas.

The converse situation occurs when the state refuses to assume the victimsurrogate role or where it takes a different view of the seriousness of an offence tothat of the individual victim. Victims of rape, incest, child abuse or domesticviolence, for example, have argued that because the state views such offences astrivial, the consequent non-enforcement or under-enforcement of these laws hasleft them unprotected. Forcing the surrogate victim to mobilize the law on behalfof the actual victim has proved to be a major task, perhaps because the surrogatevictim (the state) has been anthropomorphized as being male and unsympathetic.

The emergence of the state as surrogate victim and the diminution of the role ofthe individual victim was the product, though not the inevitable one, of theincreasing complexity and social differentiation in society.

The lessening of the victim's role was the result of the development . . . of the contractual Gesellschaftsystem characterized by social interaction that is voluntary, secular, secondary, rationalistic, impersonal.Private or family vengeance was replaced by social retribution. (Schäfer, 1968:27)

Hagan (1983:11-12) attributes the ultimate displacement of the victim in both hisvictim and prosecutorial roles to the need for formal rationality which is associatedwith modern capitalism. His approach is one of the few which attempts to place theprocess of state domination over the victim into a political context. He argues that17th and 18th century utilitarianism advanced reason and calculation as the basis ofthe policical order, neither of which conditions could be provided by victim-basedjustice systems. A predictable, rational and controllable system for initiating legalproceedings required two things, the replacement of private with public prosecutionand the denial of the centrality of the victim as the object of harm. "From theutilitarian viewpoint, the crime is against society, and the state must therefore usereason and calculation in pursuing its prosecution and in deterring its repetition"(Hagan, 1983:11). The return of the individual victim to a central place in themobilization of law seems, under these circumstances, unlikely.


The State as Direct Victim

Offences such as treason and sedition are regarded as striking directly at theexistence of the state, although some deemed traitors and seditioners view theiractions as being, in fact, in the interests of the state. More problematic, and ofgreater concern here, is the range of economic crimes which come under the rubricof white-collar crime. This covers such oftences as tax evasion, welfare fraud,medifraud, defence procurement contract frauds and the like. The concept of victimin revenue and fraud offences generally has created considerable difficulty.Reiman, for example, argues that to extend the concept of harm too far creates adanger that victimology becomes the study of everything, and therefore nothing(Reiman, 1974). In contrasting the two oftences of income tax evasion and murderhe writes:

In the case of income tax evasion, there is obviously a harm and a group of victims — ie, the remainingtaxpayers who must pay a little bit more to make up for the evasion. But clearly here the relationshipof the victims to the criminal is so attenuated and impersonal, that to lump together in one study thevictims of murder and tax evasion holds the danger of confronting victimology with a subject matter sodiverse as to have no particular coherence or unifying rationale. (Reiman, 1974:83)

Kaiser has also argued that the notion of victim in white-collar crime has littlemeaning because of the "elusive victim identity" (cited in Schneider, 1982:14). Bytoo readily dismissing the possibility of collective victims, both Kaiser and Reiman,contribute to the unnecessary and undesirable perpetuation of the bifurcationbetween physical and economic and maintain the segregation of white-collar crimeftom "real" crime. In the light of the vast losses incurred by the state this is bothpractically and analytically indefensible. As Schneider notes (1982:14): "It is ofcrucial importance for the prevention of, and the fight against, white-coüarcriminahty, shoplifting and business criminality that those victimized should bemade socially visible with the necessary clarity." Geis (1973) has also forcefullysuggested that economic criminality must not be excluded from the scope ofvictimological research. To describe such criminality as "crime without victims" isto call into doubt too easily the danger and damage of white-collar crime.

HarmHarm is an under-developed concept, but one of crucial importance in the processof criminalizing conduct and in determining appropriate sanctions (Turk, 1985).Because harm in white-collar crimes tends to be diftused among multiple victims,either jointly or severally, its totality tends to be overiooked (Sutheriand, 1945).

States do not sufter physical harm in the traditional sense. Although the bodypolitic has no Umbs to be fractured and sufters no traumatic psychological shock,the fabric of the state can sufter ecological damage through pollution of theenvironment and through the destruction of national symbols, be they natural orman-made. As well, states can suffer physical truncation as a result of annexationthrough war. -r,, , ,

Many crimes against the state result in no immediate harm. The plethora oíregulatory laws spawned by legislatures over the last three decades is aimed atpreventing harm rather than punishing its occurrence (Reiss, 1985:300-2). Althoughit is difficult to identify the harm caused by a traftic oftence or by failure to complywith a law requiring the lodgement of the annual return of a corporation, it ispossible to identify other serious forms of harm to the state. Through customsoffences, social security frauds, sales, income, payroll, gift, death and other formsof tax evasion the state is probably the most ftequent victim of cnme.


The nature of the state as a direct victim is best exemplified by the case of theSoviet Union, where the paramountcy of the state is constitutionally enshrined andis a central political tenet. Article 7 of the Fundamentals of Criminal Legislation ofthe USSR states:

A socially dangerous act (commission or omission), provided for by the criminal law, which infringesthe Soviet social or state system, the socialist economic system, sociahst property, the person or thepolitical, labour, property and other rights of citizens, or any other socially dangerous act provided forby the criminal law, which infringes the socialist legal order, shall be deemed to be a crime, (cited inZeldes, 1981:5-6)

The institutionalization of the state or the "socialist legal order" in legislationensures its victimization. As government and socialist property cover all propertynot in private hands, the potential for committing a crime against the state is large.Zeldes cities studies which indicate that in the Soviet Union crimes connected withembezzlement of socialist and personal property of citizens constitute 50% of allcrimes (1981:30). Juviler (1976:138) estimates that in the Soviet Union in 1967,17%of convictions were for crimes against socialist property, compared with 16% forcrimes against personal property. Crimes against the administrative orderaccounted for 5% of convictions. PoHtical crimes amounted to less than 1%.

In Western societies the form of crimes against the state differs. Most propertyoffences are committed against private property, and the bulk of crime against thestate is in the form of fraud. Because many offences against the state are neverdetected, the extent of such crimes is exceedingly difficult to gauge. Estimates of theextent of loss to the state in Australia as a result of tax evasion vary widely. Oneestimate puts the amount of income tax lost at about $3 billion per year, whichincludes $ 1500m in understated business income, $500m in undeclared dividend andinterest and $300m in undeclared rental income (Australia, 1985:36-7). If lossesoccasioned by dubious avoidance practices were included the amount would be fargreater. Some estimates of the illegal or black economy place the losses at between5 and 10% of national income (Harris, 1980:6). Welfare and medicare frauds areanother means of inflicting substantial economic loss, the latter alone estimated tocost some $200m per year in Australia. The indirect costs of crime must also beaccounted for, and these are more difficult to estimate. Such costs include thecommitment of government resources to gain compliance, as well as the diversionof personnel from productive activities (Groenewegen, 1984:28-9).

The harm suffered by the state as a result of taxation offences goes beyond theeconomic. The state can suffer a form of psychic shock similar to that faced byindividual victims of crime. Revelation of widespread "fiscal rape" has createdwidespread cynicism in the political system and has undermined the confidence ofordinary citizens in the legitimacy of the social order (Grabosky and Braithwaite,1986). Cohen has observed that "the most destructive impact of deviance on socialorganization is probably through its impact on trust, or confidence that others will,by and large, play by the rules" (1966:4-5).

The long term consequences of a general loss of confidence in the state have yetto be measured. A weakened state, like a weakened individual, is vulnerable tofurther victimization. The development of the image of a supine state in Australiaencouraged others to offend: "People tend to obey rules they observe beingrecognized and obeyed and to violate rules they see others violating" (Biderman,1981:805). As avoidance and evasion became wide-spread and accepted, theAustralian state, by allowing the multitude of trivial offences to go unsanctioned,became a recidivist victim.


Victimogenic Factors

A major concern of victimology is the range of factors causing victimization. Age,sex, religion, socio-economic status and race are among the factors studied but thelimited number of states makes epidemiological studies difficult. Unlike studies ofindividuals as victims, which utilize empirical data to ascertain the reasons forvictimization, the study of the state as victim relies primarily upon comparative dataover time and over a range of offences. However, some inter-jurisdictionalcomparisons are useful, even if only anecdotal.

In the Soviet Union stealing from the state is common, made easier by sloppymanagement, lax controls, excessive stock inventories, poor guarding of stocks andunjustifiable waste (Juviler, 1976:149). Tax evasion in Australia on a massive scalewas made possible by insufficient enforcement resources, inadequate informationalsystems, organizational rivalry and secrecy, while medifrauds are facilitated by theprovision of forms which lend themselves to falsification and by the inadequatemonitoring of the system.

Studies which focus almost exclusively upon the victim's role in the offence carrywith them the danger that the victim will be blamed and the offender exculpated.This valid concern should not be a major inhibitor where the state is the victim.What is important in these studies is the development of measures to preventre-offending.

Victim-Offender RelationshipEarly studies of victims concentrated upon the characteristics of the individualvictim and failed to explore the interaction between the victim and the offender.Both criminalization and victimization are processes of social interaction(Schneider, 1982:13) and there is evidence that offenders distinguish betweeneligible and non-eligible victims (Sykes and Matza, 1952). The state clearly falls intothe former category.

Interpsychical relationships between offenders and victims in white-collar crimeare not strong (Delord-Raynal, 1982:257). Economic crimes against bureaucracies,like those against the state, have a low visibility. Tax evasion is committed in thehome or office without any direct contact with the victim. As Smigel and Rossobserve: "The low visibility of crimes against bureaucracies, combined with theunpopularity of the victims, leads to a failure of the public to stigmatize theperpetrators of these crimes , , . . The organization is denied access to animportant source of protection afforded the personal victim: the sympathy andconscience of the general population" (Smigel and Ross, 1979:4-5).

The attitudes of both the public and offender toward the victim are therefore ofprime importance in understanding the reasons for crimes against the state.Processes of neutralization and rationalization figure centrally in the psychology ofoffending. Neutralization techniques are a set of learned or acquired justificationsfor deviant actions (Sykes and Matza, 1952:667). Rationalization refers to theprocess of finding some logical excuse for questionable behaviour tendencies, forthoughts as well as acts, and for decisions to perform an act (Cressey, 1970-66).These processes may take place both before and after the act (Schneider, 1982:17).

Violation of the law may be regarded as justifiable for a number of reasons wherethe state is the victim. Because the state is large, impersonal and anonymous,characteristics which it shares with other large organizational vicitms such ascorporations, an offender may feel justified in acting illegally. An abstract victim iseasily denied because of the psychological distance (Sykes and Matza, 1952:668).


" 'Honest' people whose moral scruples would never allow them to commit theft orfraud against a friend or neighbour, become totally unscrupulous when it comes totax evasion, insurance fraud or otherwise cheating the general public" (Schneider,1982:18).

Embezzlement of socialist property is said to be a crime characteristic of theSoviet Union. Such property is regarded as amorphous and inexhaustible. "Stealinga small part of this inexhaustible wealth, belonging to everyone and no one, seemsvery tempting, and in practice is easily accomplished . . . . Embezzlement . . . isnot directed against individual persons, but against the state as a whole" (Zeldes,1981:34). The absence of a direct owner of socialist property and the elimination ofprivate property has led to both an indifference to property and a desire to possessit. Juviler also documents this phenomenon (1976:150) and believes that the figuresquoted in the official statistics for theft from the state are likely to beunderstatements.

There are other reasons why theft from the state is regarded less seriously thantheft from individuals. First, the size of the victim means that the loss is regardedas being easily absorbed so that the very fact of injury is denied (Smigel, 1970:27;Sykes and Matza, 1952;667). Secondly, "our system of ethics lacks rules whichspecifically apply to relationships between individuals and large organizations"(Smigel and Ross, 1970;7). Thirdly, there is an antipathy to government generallybecause of its intrusive behaviour. In some instances, a strong antipathy to theparticular party in power may serve as a rationalization. This "condemnation of thecondemner" technique is especially powerful where the state is also viewed ascorrupt or brutal (Sykes and Matza, 1952:668). Fourthly, such behaviour isgenerally regarded as non-criminal or "morally neutral" (Kadish, 1963).

Specific techniques of neutralization attach to taxation offences. Studies oftaxpayers' attitudes to taxation and to tax evasion reveal a variety of statedmotivations. Some people evade tax (or would evade if they had the chance)because they believe that the general level of taxation is too high, because their ownlevel of taxation is too burdensome, because they think that the tax laws cast anunfair share of the burden upon them, because they feel that there is an unequalexchange relationship between what they pay in taxes and what they receive inreturn in the form of services from the government, or because they think thatgovernment is inefficient or spends their money unwisely (see eg Wallschutzky,1982; Dean et al, 1980; Lewis, 1982). Some taxpayers take the view that taxationis equivalent to theft, so that denial of victimization is facilitated where the moneyobtained is regarded as rightfully belonging to oneself. The crime, then, is a formof "rightful retaliation", an expression of the Robin Hood syndrome (Sykes andMatza, 1952:668). Delord-Raynal observes:

For the criminal the state is an organisation which arbitrarily oppresses him and which is not capableof making good use of the money it receives . . . [T]he state is even regarded as something evil, againstwhich one has to protect oneself passionately. All this is the result of a rationalisation mechanism whichserves to relieve the offender of guilt by denying that the state is a victim. (Delord-Raynal, 1982:265)

In relation to welfare fraud factors such as the inadequacy of the benefit, the factthat the recipient has paid taxes and therefore is somehow "entitled" to the money,are also relevant. Where the fraud takes the form of non-declaration of extraincome, this can be rationalized by the fact that the state is not actually paying outany more than it was before.

However, neutralization can be unlearned just as it is learned in the first place.One technique is to individualize the victim. Although it is difficult, if not


impossible or undesirable (cf "Big Brother") to personalize the state, othertechniques are available. In Austraha, in the course of debating stringent newcriminal and civil measures made necessary by massive tax losses, the harm to thestate was not only expressed in general terms, but was translated to the level of theindividual citizen. Thus each billion dollars avoided or evaded was computed as apercentage or dollar increase to the individual taxpayer who did not have theopportunity to evade taxes.

As well, the concept of the state can be fracfionalized for these purposes bylocalizing the harm in a particular agency such as the Social Security Department,the Health Department or the Taxation Office. By so doing, these agencies replacethe individual as the "victim in the functions of experiencing criminal acts andbringing them to formal attention" (Smigel and Ross, 1970:11).

Consequences of Victimization

The state's role as surrogate victim developed in part in order to interpose itselfbetween the individual and the wrongdoer, to protect the latter from theover-zealous justice of the victim and to restrain and channel vengeance. Individualvictims who suffer harm, especially physical harm, often feel isolated, helpless andstigmatized. They can feel further victimized by the processes of the criminal lawitself, by pohce questioning, by cross-examination in the courts and so on. The stateis, in this respect, unhke other victims. Rather than being doubly victimized, by thecrime and the subsequent social reaction, the state is in the unique position of beingin control of the justice process itslf. The danger, where the state itself is the directvictim, is from over-reaction. In South Africa this manifests itself through the useof excessive force and by the virtual suspension of the rule of law. In Austraha thereaction to the large scale tax evasion of the 1970s has been less dramatic, butnonetheless severe, and provides an excellent example of how victimization of thestate on a large scale can have ramifications on the legal structure, which extendwell beyond the rectification of the immediate harm.

The initial reaction of the state to the tax evasion revealed by the various reportsof the Costigan Royal Commission (Costigan, 1984) and the McCabe LafranchiReport (1982) was the appointment of Special Commonwealth Prosecutors (SpecialProsecutor Act 1982 (Cth)) to institute prosecutions or to pursue civil remedies onbehalf of the Commonwealth in relafion to the taxation frauds. These temporaryarrangements led to the estabhshment of two permanent government agencies, firstthe Office of the Director of Pubhc Prosecutions (Director of Public ProsecutionsAct 1983 (Cth)) whose function is to institute prosecutions on behalf of theCommonweahh and to recover pecuniary penalfies or pursue civil remedies onbehalf of the Commonwealth, and then the National Crime Authority, establishedby the National Crime Authority Act 1984 (Cth) whose function is to investigatecertain crimes, including taxation frauds, against commonwealth and, in somecases, state laws. Its estabhshment and extensive powers were the subject ofwidespread and heated debate, both within and outside Parhament. In December1984 the Taxafion Administration Act 1954 (Cth) was extensively revamped withthe introduction of new offences, the alteration of the sanction structure byincreasing, quite markedly the maximum penahies, by introducing higher penalfiesfor habitual offenders and by streamlining procedures for prosecutions. Also, as aresult of the problems revealed in the taxafion system by the high level of evasion,a national taxation "summit" was held in 1985 which led to major structural changesin the Australian taxation system itself. Finally, the taxation frauds were used as amajor jusfification


for the attempt to introduce a national identity system, the Australia Card (seeAustralia Card Bill 1986 (Cth)). This Bill, if it becomes law, has the potential toaftect adversely the lives of every single AustraHan, not just those who participatedin the frauds themselves, by requiring registration and proof of identity and byrequiring the production of the Card for a number of basic transactions such asopening bank accounts, sale of land and others. The possibility of interchange ofinformation between government departments and unauthorized use of informationand the consequential invasion of privacy have been uppermost in the minds ofthose opposing the Bill.

Resistance to the Australia Card proposal is ironic in that whereas the statedeveloped its surrogate victim role partly to prevent over-zealous reactions fromvictims and their families, now that the state as direct victim has been injured andprovoked, it falls to the non-oftender population to somehow interpose itself toprevent an equally dangerous over-reaction.

The power of the state must, however, be kept in perspective. In relation toindividual citizens, it is relatively powerful, but in relation to other entities, such aslarge multi-national corporations it can be at a disadvantage. This is especially soin third world states where the whole economy of the state may be less than theturnover of the company (Delord-Raynal, 1982:264). Response to this form ofvictimization may require co-operation between states, something which has beenlacking to date. The use of tax havens and the mobihty of capital indicate that the

losses of one state are often the gains of another.

ReparationOne of the important consequences of the victim of crime movement has been there-emergence of compensation as a major purpose of the criminal justice systemalongside the traditional aims of retribution and deterrence. However, where thestate is the victim the concepts of compensation and retribution tend to coalesce.A fine can be seen as compensation to the state, but its philosophical basis isretributive. Its primary purposes are to inflict punishment on the basis of moraldesert, to publicly stigmatise offenders and to inculcate in the offender and thewider community notions of right and wrong. Compensation, on the other hand,can be seen as means of financial rather than moral redress (although the two arenot mutuaüy exclusive) and of demonstrating the degree of loss inflicted by theillegal behaviour. In fact, in respect of the recovery of moneys by theCommonwealth lost through theft, fraud or other ülegality, the Director of PublicProsecutions has established, within his oftice, separate "civil remedies" unitswhose function it is to take or to co-ordinate or supervise the taking of civil remediesin respect of matters connected with or arising out of prosecutions instituted orcarried out by the Director (s 6(l)(h) Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983(Cth)). These "compensatory" civil remedies actions are taken in the civil courts orby or through administrative agencies such as the Australian Taxation Office andare independent of, though complementary to, the retributive prosecutions. Thesedistinctions are often not perceived by the accused persons who feel themselvesvictimized by an all-powerful state which, through its numerous and variedagencies, now acting in concert, is seen as relentlessly pursuing them through boththe civü and criminal courts. In the financial year 1984-85, $12,390,342 was securedby way of injunction or otherwise and some $2,542,507 was actuaUy received by theCommonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Annual Report, 1985:29),


Conclusion

The state as a victim of crime is in some ways unique. It alone can define offencesand hence when or rather how victim-offender relationships will arise. In otherrespects it has the same problems as other collectivities — size, impersonaUty andamorphousness. Crime against the state has been pervasive and for that reason,almost invisible. This universality requires a re-examination of the concept ofcriminal. The white-collar criminal cannot be seen as abnormal, easilydistinguishable from the law-abiding citizen. "If all men do not engage in crimesagainst bureaucracies, the vast majority see little or nothing wrong in certain kindsof crime against these victims" (Smigel and Ross, 1970:6).

This article has only begun to explore some of the commonalities and differencesbetween the state and other collectivities as victims. It has only dealt briefly withfeatures the state has in common with the individual victim. Its aim has not beento plead for sympathy for the state, but rather to ensure that the horizons ofvictimology are not artificially confined. Just as criminology was intellectuallyimpoverished by its continuing concentration on the individual offender, so too willvictimology remain constricted if it remains predominantly oriented to theindividual victim.

REFERENCES

Australia (1985) Reform of the Australian Tax System: Draft White Paper. Australian GovernmentPubhshing Service: Canberra.

Biderman, A D (1981) "Sources of Date for Victimology" Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology72:789.

Burt, M R (1983) "A Conceptual Framework for Victimological Research" Victimology 8:261.Christie, N (1977) "Confhcts as Property" British Journal of Criminology 17:1.Cohen, M K (1966) Deviance and Control. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.Costigan, F (1984) Report of the Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ships Painters

and Dockers Union. AGPS: 1984.Cressey, D R (1970) "The Violators; Vocabularies of Adjustment." in Smigel, E O and H L Ross (eds)

Crimes Against Bureaucracy. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York.Dean. P, Keenan, T and F Kenney, (1980) "Taxpayers'Attitudes to Income Tax Evasion: An Empirical

Study" British Tax Review 28.Delord-Raynal, Y (1982) "Victims of White Collar Crimes" in Schneider H J (ed) "The Victim in

Intemational Perspective", de Gruyter: Berlin.Director of Pubhc Prosecutions (Commonwealth) (1985) Annual Report 1984-85.Dyson, K H F (1980) The State Tradition in Western Europe. Martin Robertson: Oxford.Geis, G (1973) "Victimization Patterns in White-collar Crime" in Drapkin I and E Viano (eds)

Victimology: A New Focus. Lexington Books: Lexington.Grabosky P N and Braithwaite. J (1985) Fraud Against the Government, (forthcoming).Greenberg, J (1984) "The Victim in Historical Perspective: Some Aspects of the English Expenence"

Journal of Social Issues 40.17. . ^ „. ^ . . .̂Groenewegen, P (1984) "Distributional and AUocational Effects of Tax Avoidance in Collins, D J (ed)

Tax Avoidance and the Economy. Austrahan Tax Research Foundational: Sydney.Hagan, J, (1983) Victims Before the Law. Butterworths: Toronto. , , ^. ™ „ ,. .Harris, R (1980) "Taxation and Pubhc Spending in a Modern Economy, m Wilkes, J (ed) The Politics

of Taxation. Hodder and Stoughton: Sydney.Jeffrey, C R (1957) "The Development of Crime in Eariy Enghsh Society" Journal of Criminal Law,

Criminology and Police Science 41:647. . , , . . . . „ , , ,,Johnson, K A and Wasielewski, P L (1982) "A Commentary on Victimization Research and the

Importance of Meaning Structures" Criminology 20:205.Juviler P H (1976) Revolutionary Law and Order. The Free Press: New York.Kadish S (1963) "Some Observations on the Use of Criminal Sanctions in Enforcing Economic

Regulations" University of Chicago Law Review 30:423.Lewis, A (1982) The Psychology of Taxation. Martin Robertson: Oxford.


Maitland, F W (1965) The Forms of Action at Common Law. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,McCabe, P W and Lafranchi, D J (1982) Report of Inspectors P W McCabe and D J Lafranchi Appointed

to Investigate the Particular Affairs ofNavillus Pty Ltd and 922 Other Companies. Victorian GovtPrinter: Melbourne,

Quinney, R (1972) "Who is the Victim?" Criminology 10:314,Reiman, J H (1974) "Victims, Harm and Justice" in Drapkin I and E Viano (eds) Victimology: A New

Focus. Lexington Books: Lexington,Reiss, A J Jr (1981) "Forward: Towards a Revitalization of Theory and Research on Victimization by

Crime" Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 72:704,— (1985) "The Control of Organizational Life," in Doob A N and E L Greenspan (eds) Perspectives in

Criminal Law. Canada Law Book Inc: Ontario,Rusche, G and Kirchheimer, O (1939) Punishment and Social Structure. Columbia University Press:

New York,Schäfer, S (1968) The Victim and His Criminal. New York: Random House,Schneider, H J (1982) "The Present Situation of Victimology in the World," in Schneider H J (ed) "The

Victim in International Perspective", de Gruyter: Berlin— (1982) "Victims of Genocide" in Schneider H J (ed) "The Victim in International Perspective", de

Gruyter: Berlin,Sellin, T and Wolfgang, M (1964) The Measurement of Delinquency, New York: Wiley,Smigel, E O (1970) "Attitudes Towards Stealing Related to Size of Victim Organization" in Smigel, E

O and H L Ross (eds) Crimes Against Bureaucracy. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York,Smigel, E O and Ross, H L (1970) "Introduction" in Smigel, E O and H L Ross (eds) Crimes Against

Bureaucracy. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York,Sutherland, E H (1945) "Is 'White-collar Crime' Crime" American Sociological Review 10:132,Sykes, G and Matza, D (1952) "Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency" American

Sociological Review 22:664,Tomlin, J W (1982) "Victims of White-Collar Crimes" in Schneider H J (ed) "The Victim in International

Perspective", De Gruyter: Beriin,Turk, A T (1985) "Criminology and Socio-Legal Studies" in Doob A N and E L Greenspan (eds)

Perspectives in Criminal Law. Canada Law Book Inc: Ontario,Wallschutzky, I (1982) "The Australian Tax System and Tax Evasion" Taxation in Australia 17:137,Wolfgang, M and Singer, S I (1978) "Victim Categories of Crime" Journal of Criminal Law and

Criminology 69-379,Zeldes, I (1981) The Problems of Crime in the Soviet Union. Charles C Thomas: Illinois,Ziegenhagen, (1977) Victims, Crime and Social Control. Praeger: New York,

Copyright of Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology is the property of Australian Academic Press

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

The state as a victim of crime

Documents