Now who really is the victim? Is he because he was passed out drunk on the couch and was assaulted with a deadly weapon? Or is she because she claims a history of sexual abuse (marital rape)? In the end the jury finds her not guilty as a result of temporary insanity. The couple divorced and went on with their lives.
In the action of police brutality, a vitimologist must first ask who is the victim. If they decide that the suspect is the victim then they will ask what did the victim do to deserve this beating? In trial the victimologist might ask if the judge is allowing listening to the suspect or officer and will it affect his/her judgment. Another question is when it comes to police brutality, does the suspect have rights, because if he/she is a criminal then does this justify the use of brutality to subdue the victim.
The term "rediscovery" of victims means that there is a growing problem in society, but it doesn't have a specific name so it is hard to keep data about these new crimes that are happening. This in result makes it hard to arrest criminals who are doing these crimes because for one what does the criminal get charged for and two how do police try to prevent it from happening again. Two examples of this are "date rape" and "road rage." At one point in time neither of these had specific names, so it was hard for police to crack down on them. It was until someone coined these terms, data could be kept and strategies and punishments could be made to stop these crimes.
Vicimologists don't get involved with the rediscovery process until the 4th stage. They play vial roles in this process by getting involved with the system. Victimologists, if they can keep an open mind and be very objective, can use their methods of social science and give accurate answers about the questions being made by the victims. "For instance, a blue-ribbon panel of experts was convened by the U.