The indirect victim's experience of suicide and the victimisation resulting from the incident was studied. The Indirect Victim's Experience Model of a Suicide Incident (see Figure 2.1) was designed as a theoretical framework to direct the research findings and for the interpretation of data. A qualitative exploratory approach was used and a group of 20 respondents was selected by means of purposive and snowball sampling methods. All the respondents were interviewed personally. The interpretation and analysis of the data showed that the assumptions based on Janoff-Bulman and Frieze's theory and certain societal myths regarding suicide still exist. These assumptions and myths could subconsciously have an influence on the nature and extent of the victimisation experienced by the next of kin. The respondents themselves accepted these assumptions and myths. Research findings further showed that these assumptions are affected upon receiving the news of the suicide, while myths are destroyed. This could have an influence on the victim's experience of suicide. Every indirect victim functions before, during and after the suicide incident within a specific family and social system. The way in which the indirect victim experiences the support and integration from within the family and social system, determines the acceptance or non-acceptance of the death by suicide of a significant other. This will also have an influence on the indirect victim's reintegration into society in the short and long term. The need of the indirect victim to be involved within a family and society was clearly identified during the study. These findings made it possible to make practical recommendations with regard to the indirect victim's experience of suicide. Society should be informed about the realities and results of suicide. In addition, these findings highlighted further areas for research. / Thesis (MA (Criminology))--University of Pretoria, 2004. / Social Work and Criminology / unrestricted

This research focused on the personal experiences of both male and female victims of violent crimes. The aim of this research was to explore how indigenous Black South Africans understand and deal with victimisation. An African epistemology was used to help gain a deeper understanding of the experiences of the participants. Participants were recruited using purposive sampling strategy. Five participants were selected for this study. Data was collected using individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Based on the transcribed data, themes were extracted and analysed using content analysis. The results indicate that participants attributed varying meanings to their victimisation. / Psychology / M. A. (Clinical Psychology)

懲罰性賠償金係透過課予加害人超出被害人損害之賠償，達成制裁加害人，並嚇阻加害人以及其他行為人從事相類行為。該制度係源自於英國，並自英國傳遞自美國，並於美國廣泛盛行。懲罰性賠償金制度具有懲罰、嚇阻、設立典範之功能、執行法律等功能，惟其係私法下之概念，卻帶有懲罰目的之公法性質，跨越兩種領域使其極具爭議性。 消費者保護法第51條將英美法之懲罰性賠償金制度引進，致使我國民刑分立之法體系產生模糊地帶。關於我國實務對於懲罰性賠償金之態度，得以自其就消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋觀察。然實務就要件之解釋未盡統一，如此將導致當事人無所適從。 2015年6月17日修正之消費者保護法第51條，明確將「重大過失」納入規定，顯見立法者對於企業經營者採取更為嚴格之態度。如此修正固解決長久以來「過失」是否應限縮於「重大過失」之爭議，惟關於消費者保護法第51條其他要件之解釋，仍有尚未解決之問題。 觀諸消費者保護法第51條之要件，「依本法所提之訴訟」於「本法」及「訴訟」即存在寬嚴不同之解釋。另關於該條文之責任主體，企業經營者是否就其受僱人之懲罰性賠償金責任負責，又企業經營者間之責任關係為何，皆有釐清之必要。請求權主體之部分，消費者保護法第7條規定之「第三人」並未出現於第51條懲罰性賠償金之規定中，產生消費者以外之「第三人」是否為請求權主體之爭議。另外，被害人死亡時懲罰性賠償金之歸屬，亦為立法者制定該條文規定時，未審慎思考致生之法律漏洞。究竟被害人死亡時，應由間接被害人抑或繼承人請求懲罰性賠償金，無論如何結論之擇採，皆有賴縝密之法律邏輯推演。最後於懲罰性賠償金之計算，2015年6月17日明確懲罰輕過失行為以及提高倍數上限之修正，其妥適性為何；又消費者保護法第51條規定之計算基礎「損害額」之意義、計算時酌定之因素、與有過失之考量等，皆有待解決。本文以整理消費者保護法第51條懲罰性賠償金適用上之爭議，並嘗試透過學說及實務見解之分析歸納出合理之結論，並就結論之推演，參考部分日本法學說，期能對於消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋提供另一種思考方向。 / Punitive damages are extra monetary burdens which make the offender to pay more than those the injured has lost, in order to deter the offender and other offenders from behaving the same. The doctrine of punitive damages is originated from England and swept America. Punitive damages have the functions of punishment, deterrence, setting examples to the society, law enforcement and so on. However, it is controversial that the doctrine of punitive damages is the concept under civil law, but with the function of punishment, which makes the doctrine in the borderland between public and private law. Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act is the doctrine of punitive damages in Taiwan, which causes a gray area among the separation of civil law and criminal law, and makes Art. 51 controversial. It is not difficult to know the attitude of the judges toward punitive damages by understanding the explanation of Art. 51. But there is no consistency in the explanation of each element of Art. 51, which makes the Article bewildering. On June 17, 2015, gross negligence has been added to the amended Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, which shows the strict attitude of the legislators toward the business operators. This amendment solves the problem that whether negligence should be limited to gross negligence or not, but there still are other issues about Art. 51 Which should be solved. Among Art. 51, “this law” and “litigation” in the element of “in a litigation brought in accordance with this law” are explained in both strict and easing ways. About the subject of the legal responsibility of Art. 51, whether the business operators should be responsible for the act of their employees, and whether business operators should be jointly and severally liable for punitive damages are issues should be discussed. About the claimers of Art. 51, comparing Art. 7 to Art. 51, we can find that “third party” isn’t showed in Art. 51, which brings up to the issue that whether third party other than consumer can claim for punitive damages. Also, who can claim for punitive damages when the victim dies is an important issue. The legislators did not think of this kind of situation, which caused legislation imperfection among Art. 51. Whether the indirect victim or the successor should be the claimer of punitive damages in this kind of situation should be explained carefully and logically. Last but not least, in related to the calculation of punitive damages, the amendment of Art. 51 in June, 17, 2015 specifies that objective negligence and subjective negligence should be punished and the maximum limit on the amount of damages has been raised. Whether the amendment is proper or not, and whether “the amount of damages” should be confined to “property damages” should be clarified. It is also necessary to figure out the considerations of determination of the amount. Whether comparative negligence should be considered while deciding the amount of punitive damages is also controversial, which should be investigated prudently. This thesis will focus on Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act and the issues about it. This thesis will analyze those issues according to the theories and opinions of practice in Taiwan. American theories and Japanese theories will also be discussed in this thesis in order to solve the problems, and to provide a different view of Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act.

This research focused on the personal experiences of both male and female victims of violent crimes. The aim of this research was to explore how indigenous Black South Africans understand and deal with victimisation. An African epistemology was used to help gain a deeper understanding of the experiences of the participants. Participants were recruited using purposive sampling strategy. Five participants were selected for this study. Data was collected using individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Based on the transcribed data, themes were extracted and analysed using content analysis. The results indicate that participants attributed varying meanings to their victimisation. / Psychology / M. A. (Clinical Psychology)

Le retentissement psychologique d’événements sources de responsabilité, quels qu’ils soient – acte de terrorisme, perte d’un être cher, harcèlement moral… – est spécifique du fait de ses caractères protéiforme et invisible. Tout d’abord, le premier d’entre eux tient au fait qu’en matière psychologique tant les atteintes que les souffrances en résultant sont diverses. Ainsi, d’un point de vue lésionnel, certains événements vont s’avérer plus traumatisants que d’autres, principalement ceux au cours desquels le sujet a été confronté à sa propre mort. Concernant la souffrance, un sujet peut tout aussi bien souffrir émotionnellement d’une altération de sa propre intégrité – par exemple physique avec le diagnostic d’une pathologie grave – que d’un tort affectant celle d’un proche (e.g. décès, handicap). Un retentissement qualifié d’invisible ensuite, puisqu’il apparaît bien plus aisé d’identifier une atteinte à l’intégrité physique qu’une atteinte à l’intégrité psychique. De plus, certaines atteintes psychologiques sont totalement insaisissables en raison de leur caractère éminemment diffus. L’objet de cette démonstration est donc de savoir comment le droit de la responsabilité civile va appréhender la victime de ce retentissement psychologique. Sa prise en charge ne pourra être que particulière du fait de l’interaction inévitable entre les sphères juridique et psychologique.Afin de le découvrir sera proposée, dans un premier temps, une conceptualisation de la victime psychologique se fondant sur la réalité psychopathologique. Deux grandes distinctions nourrissent cette réflexion. L’une est de nature juridique ; il s’agit de la distinction du dommage et du préjudice. L’autre est d’origine psychopathologique ; elle oppose le choc émotionnel au traumatisme psychique. Leur entrecroisement permettra d’élaborer différents cas de manifestation de la souffrance psychologique et de dessiner les contours de la qualité de victime. Dans un second temps, au titre de l’indemnisation de la victime psychologique, tant l’appréciation que l’évaluation de ses préjudices seront examinées. Les répercussions du traumatisme psychique voire du choc émotionnel vont parfois être si importantes que l’indemnisation ne pourra se cantonner à la seule souffrance éprouvée. Des conséquences de nature différente, par exemple patrimoniales, devront être prises en considération. À cette fin, une typologie des préjudices de la victime sous analyse mérite d’être mise en place. Des règles d’indemnisation distinctes seront érigées en fonction du préjudice subi. Un préjudice présumé, notamment à partir d’un dommage, ne pourra logiquement être compensé de la même façon que des préjudices non présumables, c’est-à-dire soumis à expertise. En somme, le système d’indemnisation à instaurer se devra d’être en phase avec le système de révélation de la souffrance qui aura été précédemment établi.Ainsi, cette étude se propose de construire un réel statut fondateur de la victime psychologique. Une fois cette notion cardinale intégralement conceptualisée, un régime d’indemnisation s’en inférant sera rationnellement avancé. / The psychological impact of the events, which are the source of responsibility, be they acts of terrorism, loss of a loved one, psychological harassment, is specific to characteristics both protean and invisible. The first among them is due to the fact that in psychological matter injuries and the resulting suffering are both varied. As such, from the injury point of view, certain events will prove to be more traumatizing than others. Principally those during which the subject has been faced with his own death. Concerning suffering, a subject can as well emotionally suffer a change in his own integrity – for example the physical one with a diagnosis of a serious illness – that of a sort damage which affects that of a loved one (e.g. death or handicap). Then, the impact is considered invisible. It appears much more simple indeed, to identify harm to physical integrity as a harm to psychic integrity. More so, certain psychological harms are totally imperceptible by reason of their eminently diffuse characteristic. The object of this demonstration is therefore to know how civil liability law will comprehend the victim of such a psychological impact. Its comprehension will be particular given the inevitable interaction between the judicial and psychological spheres.In order to better understand this, we will first propose a conceptualization of the psychological victim that blends into psychopathological reality. Two major distinctions feed this thought. One is legal nature, which relates to the distinction between prejudice and harm. The other is psychopathological in nature which opposes emotional shock and psychic trauma. Their intertwining allows us to elaborate different cases of manifestation of psychological suffering and define the contours of the qualities of the victim. Secondly, regarding compensation for a psychological victim, both the appreciation and the evaluation of these prejudices will be examined. The repercussions of psychic trauma, or even emotional shock can sometimes be so grave that compensation cannot restrict itself only to the experienced suffering. Consequences of different natures, for example patrimonial ones, must be taken into consideration. To this end, a division of the prejudices of the psychological victim should be put in place. Distinct rules of compensation will be established based on the prejudice endured. A prejudice presumed, originating notably from a harm, cannot logically be compensated in the same fashion as non-presumable prejudices that require a forensic assessment. In short, the system of compensation must be in phase with the system of disclosure of suffering that has been previously established. As a result, this study proposes to construct a true founding status of a psychological victim. Once this principal notion has been completely conceptualized, we can use it to create a rational compensation scheme.