Module 5

Learning Outcomes
 Understand what Victimology is and what is the importance of victimology
 Know who is a Crime Victim?
 Discussed the history of Victimology
 Differentiate the Victimology and Criminology
 Differentiate the Victimity and Victimizer
 Analyze the different Theories of Victimization
Time Allotment
Six lectures hours
Content
UNIT 1
Overview of Victimology

What is Victimology?

 Victimology is the scientific study of the psychological effects of crime and the relationship between
victims and offender . It examines victim patients and tendencies, studies how victims interact with the
police and the legal system; and analyzes how factors of class, race, and sexual orientation affect the
perception of the victim by different constituents, including the public, the court system, and the
media.”

 According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, victimology the study of the ways in which the behavior of
crime victims may have led to or contributed to their victimization.

 Victimology is the scientific study of victimization, including the relationships between victims and
offenders, victims and the criminal justice system, and victims and other social groups and institutions,
such as the media, businesses, and social movements.

 Victimology studies victims of crimes and other forms ol human rights violations that arc not
necessarily crime.

 Victimology is the scientific study of victimization, including the relationships between victims and
offenders, the interactions between victims and the criminal justice system., and the connections
between victims and other societal groups and institutions, such as the media, businesses, and social
movement.

From this definition, victimology encompasses the study of:

 victimization.

 victim-offender relationships,

 victim-criminal justice system relationships,

 victims and the media.

 victims and the costs of crime,

 victims and social movements.

Who is a Crime Victim?

 refers to any person, group, or entity who has suffered injury or loss due to illegal activity.
 The harm can be physical, psychological, or economic.

Legally, “victim" typically includes the following:

 A person who has suffered direct, or threatened, physical, emotional or pecuniary harm as a
result of the commission of a crime
 In the case of a victim being an institutional entity, any of the same harms by an individual or
authorized representative of another entity.

History of Victimology

The scientific study of victimology can be traced back to the 1940s and 1950s. Two criminologists, Mendelsohn
and Hans Von Hentig, began to explore the field of victimology by creating typologies. They are considered the
fathers of the study of victimology. Mendelsohn was the first to coin the term Victimology in 1940. These new
"victimologists” began to study the behaviors and vulnerabilities of victims, such as the resistance of rape
victims and characteristics of the types of people who were victims of crime, especially murder victims.

Mendelsohn interviewed victims to obtain information, and his analysis led him to believe that most victims had
an "unconscious aptitude for being victimized”. He created a typology of six (6) types of victims, with only the
first type, the innocent, portrayed as just i in the wrong place at the wrong time. The other five type all
contributed somehow to their own injury, and represented victim participation.

Hans Von Hentig studied victims of homicide, and said that the most likely type of victim is the depressive type
who is an easy target, careless and unsuspecting. The greed) type is easily I duped because his or her
motivation for easy gain lowers his or her natural tendency to be suspicious. The wanton type is particularly
vulnerable to stresses that occur in a given period of time in the life cycle, such as juvenile victims. The
tormentor, is the victim of an attack from the target of his or her abuse, such as with battered women.

Victimology versus Criminology

Victimology focuses on helping victims heal after a crime, while criminology aims to understand the
criminal’s motives and the underlying causes of crime. Criminologists "look at every conceivable aspect of
deviant behavior. This includes the impacts of crime on individual victims and their families, society at large, and
even criminal’s themselves.” according to The Balance. Criminologists study elements like the frequency,
location, causes and types of crime, then work to develop effective and humane means of preventing it.”

Victimologists are concerned with fostering recovery, while criminologists seek prevention. Criminologists
seek to understand the social impact of crime.

Victimity and Victimizer

Victimity refers to the slate, quality, or fact of being a victim while Victimizer refers to a person who
victimizes others.

UNIT 2
THEORIES OF VICTIMIZATION

Relative to the field of criminology, which originated around the mid-18th century, victimology is a young field
with roots in the late 1940s. Since that time, several generations of scholars have advanced its theoretical
beginnings and promoted the re-emergence of interest in the victim through a wide range of research questions
and methods.

A. First Generation: Early Victimologists

First-generation scholarly work in victimology proposed victim typologies based on the offender–victim
dyad in a criminal act. Common to the ideas of these early victimologists was that each classified victims in
regard to the degree to which they had caused their own victimization. These early theoretical reflections
pushed the budding field of victimology in a direction that eventually led to a reformulation of the definition of
victimization.

1. Hans Von Hentig

German criminologist HansVon Hentig (1948) developed a typology of victims based on the degree to which
victims contributed to causing the criminal act. Examining the psychological, social, and biological dynamics of
the situation, he classified victims into 13 categories depending on their propensity or risk for victimization. His
typology included the young, female, old, immigrants, depressed, wanton, tormentor, blocked, exempted, or
fighting. His notion that victims contributed to their victimization through their actions and behaviors led to the
development of the concept of “victim-blaming” and is seen bymany victimadvocates as an attempt to assign
equal culpability to the victim.

2. Benjamin Mendelsohn

Benjamin Mendelsohn (1976), an attorney, has often been referred to as the “father” of victimology. Intrigued by
the dynamics that take place between victims and offenders, he surveyed both parties during the course of
preparing a case for trial. Using these data, he developed a six-category typology of victims based on legal
considerations of the degree of a victim’s culpability. This classification ranged from the completely innocent
victim (e.g., a child or a completely unconscious person) to the imaginary victim (e.g., persons suffering from
mental disorders who believe they are victims).

3. Marvin E. Wolfgang

The first empirical evidence to support the notion that victims are to some degree responsible for their own
victimization was presented by Marvin E. Wolfgang (1958), who analyzed Philadelphia’s police homicide
records from 1948 through 1952. He reported that 26% of homicides resulted from victim precipitation.
Wolfgang identified three factors common to victim-precipitated homicides: (1) The victim and offender had
some prior interpersonal relationship, (2) there was a series of escalating disagreements between the parties,
and (3) the victim had consumed alcohol.

4. Stephen Schafer

Moving from classifying victims on the basis of propensity or risk and yet still focused on the victim– offender
relationship, Stephen Schafer’s (1968) typology classifies victims on the basis of their “functional responsibility.”
Victims’ dual role was to function so that they did not provoke others to harm them while also preventing such
acts. Schafer’s seven-category functional responsibility typology ranged from no victim responsibility (e.g.,
unrelated victims, those who are biologically weak), to some degree of victim responsibility (e.g., precipitative
victims), to total victim responsibility (e.g., self-victimizing).

5. Menachem Amir

Several years later, Menachem Amir (1971) undertook one of the first studies of rape. On the basis of the
details in the Philadelphia police rape records, Amir reported that 19% of all forcible rapes were victim
precipitated by such factors as the use of alcohol by both parties; seductive actions by the victim; and the
victim’s wearing of revealing clothing, which could tantalize the offender to the point of misreading the victim’s
behavior. His work was criticized by the victim’s movement and the feminist movement as blaming the victim.

B. Second Generation: Theories of Victimization

The second generation of theorists shifted attention from the role of the victim toward an emphasis on a
situational approach that focuses on explaining and testing how lifestyles and routine activities of everyday life
create opportunities for victimization. The emergence of these two theoretical perspectives is one of the most
significant developments in the field of victimology.

1. Lifestyle Exposure Theory

Using data from the 1972–1974 NCS, Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo (1978) noticed that certain groups
of people, namely, young people and males, were more likely to be criminally victimized. They theorized that an
individual’s demographics (e.g., age, sex) tended to influence one’s lifestyle, which in turn increased his or her
exposure to risk of personal and property victimization. For instance, according to Hindelang et al., one’s sex
carries with it certain role expectations and societal constraints; it is how the individual reacts to these
influences that determines one’s lifestyle. If females spend more time at home, they would be exposed to fewer
risky situations involving strangers and hence experience fewer stranger-committed victimizations.

Using the principle of homogamy, Hindelang et al. (1978) also argued that lifestyles that expose people to a
large share of would-be offenders increase one’s risk of being victimized. Homogamy would explain why young
persons are more likely to be victimized than older people, because the young are more likely to hang out with
other youth, who commit a disproportionate amount of violent and property crimes.

2. Routine Activities Theory

Cohen and Felson (1979) formulated routine activities theory to explain changes in aggregate direct-contact
predatory (e.g., murder, forcible rape, burglary) crime rates in the United States from 1947 through 1974.
Routine activities theory posits that the convergence in time and space of a motivated offender, a suitable
target, and the absence of a capable guardian provide an opportunity for crimes to occur. The absence of any
one of these conditions is sufficient to drastically reduce the risk of criminal opportunity, if not prevent it
altogether.

Routine activities theory does not attempt to explain participation in crime but instead focuses on how
opportunities for crimes are related to the nature of patterns of routine social interaction, including one’s work,
family, and leisure activities. So, for example, if someone spends time in public places such as bars or hanging
out on the streets, he or she increases the likelihood of coming into contact with a motivated offender in the
absence of a capable guardian. The supply of motivated offenders is taken as a given. What varies is the
supply of suitable targets (e.g., lightweight, easy-to-conceal property, such as cell phones and DVD players, or
drunk individuals) and capable guardians (e.g., neighbors, police, burglar alarms).

3. Empirical Support

Researchers commonly have used lifestyle exposure and routine activity theories to test hypotheses about how
individuals’ daily routines expose them to victimization risk. These theories have been applied principally to
examine opportunities for different types of personal and property victimizations using diverse samples that
range from school-age children, to college students, to adults in the general population across the United States
and abroad. The data are generally supportive of the theories, although not all studies fully support the theories.

C. Third Generation: Refinement and Empirical Tests of Opportunity Theories of Victimization

Researchers’ continued testing of lifestyle exposure and routine activity theories has generated supportive
findings and critical thinking that has led to a refining and extension of them. Miethe and Meier (1994)
developed an integrated theory of victimization, called structural-choice theory, which attempts to explain both
offender motivation and the opportunities for victimization. This further refinement of opportunity theories of
victimization was an important contribution to the victimology literature.

One of the first studies of opportunity theories for predatory crimes was conducted by Sampson and
Wooldredge (1987), who used data from the 1982 British Crime Survey (BCS). Their findings showed that
individual and household characteristics were significant predictors of victimization, as were neighborhood-level
characteristics. For example, although age of the head of the household was an important indicator of burglary,
the percentage of unemployed persons in the area also predicted burglary. Sampson and Wooldredge’s
multilevel opportunity model was among the first to test lifestyle and routine activity theories. Multilevel modeling
of lifestyle exposure and routine activity theories continues to draw the attention of scholars seeking to test how
both individual characteristics and macrolevel ones—for example, neighborhood characteristics— frame
victimization opportunities (see Wilcox, Land, & Hunt, 2003).
Victimization theories have been expanded to examine nonpredatory crimes and “victimless” crimes, such as
gambling and prostitution (Felson, 1998), and deviant behavior such as heavy alcohol use and dangerous
drinking in young adults (Osgood, Wilson, O’Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 1996). The theories have also been
applied to a wide range of crimes in different social contexts, such as school-based victimization in secondary
schools (Augustine, Wilcox, Ousey, & Clayton, 2002), stalking among college students (Fisher, Cullen, &
Turner, 2000), and even explanations of the link between victimization and offending (Sampson & Lauritsen,
1990). Other scholars have examined how opportunity for victimization is linked to social contexts and different
types of locations, such as the workplace (Lynch, 1987), neighborhoods (Lynch & Cantor, 1992), and college
campuses (Fisher, Sloan, Cullen, & Lu, 1998).

D. Fourth Generation: Moving Beyond Opportunity Theories

Work by Schreck and his colleagues suggests that antecedents to opportunity, such as low self-control, social
bonds, and peer influences, have also been found to be important predictors of violent and property
victimization (Schreck, 1999; Schreck & Fisher, 2004; Schreck, Stewart, & Fisher, 2006). Schreck, Wright, and
Miller (2002) examined the effects of individual factors (e.g., low self-control, weak social ties to family and
school), and situational risk factors (e.g., having delinquent peers, having a lot of unstructured social time) on
the risk of victimization.

Theories of Victimology

Victimology is the study of crime victims. It’s a subset of criminology, the study of crime. People who study
victimology, or victimization, examine the psychological effects of crimes on the victims, the interactions
between victims and the criminal justice system and the relationships between victims and offenders. Three
areas within of study within victimology include the following:

 Luckenbill's (1977) Situated Transaction Model - This one is commonly found in sociology of deviance
textbooks. The idea is that at the interpersonal level, crime and victimization is a contest of character.

The stages go like this:

(1) insult - "Your Momma";

(2) clarification - "Whaddya say about my Mother";

(3) retaliation - "I said your Momma and you too";

(4) counter retaliation - "Well, you're worse than my Momma";

(5) presence of weapon - or search for a weapon or clenching of fists;

(6) onlookers - presence of audience helps escalate the situation.

 Benjamin & Master's Threefold Model - This one is found in a variety of criminological studies, from
prison riots to strain theories.

The idea is that conditions that support crime can be classified into three general categories:

(1) precipitating factors - time, space, being in the wrong place at the wrong time;

(2) attracting factors - choices, options, lifestyles (the sociological expression "lifestyle" refers to daily
routine activities as well as special events one engages in on a predictable basis);

(3) predisposing factors - all the sociodemographic characteristics of victims, being male, being young,
being poor, being a minority, living in squalor, being single, being unemployed.

 Cohen & Felson's (1979) Routine Activities Theory - This one is quite popular among victimologists
today who are anxious to test the theory.
 Briefly, it says that crime occurs whenever three conditions come together:

(1) suitable targets - and we'll always have suitable targets as long as we have poverty;

(2) motivated offenders - and we'll always have motivated offenders since victimology, unlike
deterministic criminology, assumes anyone will try to get away with something if they can; and

(3) absence of guardians - the problem is that there's few defensible spaces (natural surveillance
areas) and in the absence of private security, the government can't do the job alone.

Modern theories of victimology try to explain why some are more likely than other to become victims of a crime.

 Victim Precipitation Theory- The victim precipitation theory suggests that the characteristics of the
victim precipitate the crime. That is, a criminal could single out a victim because the victim is of a
certain ethnicity, race, and sexual orientation, gender or gender identity. This theory does not only
involve hate crimes directed at specific groups of people. It might also involve occupations or
activities. For example, someone who is opposed to his or her views may target a political activist. An
employee may target a recently promoted employee if he or she believes they deserved the
promotion.

 Lifestyle Theory- Lifestyle theory suggests that certain people may become the victims of crimes
because of their lifestyles and choices. For example, someone with a gambling or substance addiction
could be as an “easy victim” by a con artist. Walking alone at night in a dangerous area,
conspicuously wearing expensive jewellery, leaving doors unlocked and associating with known
criminals are other lifestyle characteristics that may lead to victimization.

 Deviant Place Theory- There is some overlap between the lifestyle theory and the deviant place
theory. The deviant place theory states that an individual is more likely to become the victim of a crime
when exposed to dangerous areas. In other words, a mugger is more likely to target a person walking
alone after dark in a bad neighbourhood. The more frequently a person ventures into bad
neighbourhoods where violent crime is common, the greater the risk of victimization. There is also
some overlap between the deviant place theory and socioeconomic approaches to victimization. Low-
income households are more likely to be located in or near dangerous areas of town, and individuals
from poor socioeconomic backgrounds are less capable of moving away from these dangerous areas.

Learning Activity

Direction: Make a video presentation about any unit of this module, then upload your presentation in
your own youtube account and send the link of your presentation in our google classrom intended for
this subject OR submit your video preentation in our google classrom intended for this subject.

Criteria Percentage
Creativity 40
Content 40
Originality 20
Total 100