Theories of Victimization

1. Theories of Victimization

Benjamin Mendelsohn first introduced the term “victimology” at a lecture for the Rumanian Psychiatric Society in 1947, followed by an article in 1956 calling for the creation of a discipline of victimology that would be independent of criminology and would bring needed attention to victims of crime. For this contribution, Mendelsohn is often called the “father of victimology” (Wemmers, 2017). Mendelsohn’s (1956) early work also explored relationships between survivors and perpetrators, focusing on how responsible survivors were for what happened to them.

One of the central concerns of victimology was identified by Marxist criminologist Richard Quinney, whom you first learned about in the last Challenge. Quinney (1972) famously asked, “Who is the victim?” and argued that “the victim” is a socially constructed phenomenon. In other words, for someone to be recognized as a survivor, there needs to be some agreement within society. This means that societal power dynamics will influence collective understandings of victimization, allowing some people to be more easily recognized as survivors when they are harmed (McGarry & Walklate, 2015).

Criminologist Nils Christie developed a typology of the “ideal victim,” suggesting categories of people who are most likely to receive “the complete and legitimate status of being a victim” when they are harmed. Christie (1986) suggests that this is most likely to happen when the survivor is perceived as weak, is engaged in a respectable activity, is not seen as responsible for contributing to their victimization, and does not know the offender.

hint

Recall that you learned about how the media portrays the “ideal victim” way back in the first Challenge. In this definition, the socially constructed survivor is seen as weaker than their attacker, as blameless, and as someone with whom the audience will readily sympathize.

The opposite is also true: When people’s experiences of victimization do not align with these characteristics, they may not be recognized as legitimate survivors.

EXAMPLE

Scott (2021) argues that single offenses that occur in public spaces with strangers tend to receive harsher penalties from the criminal justice system than offenses that occur in private, even when these are repeat offenses by a person in a position of trust.

This can lead to an erosion of trust in the criminal justice system and, subsequently, reluctance to report future victimization.

In the following sections, we will examine some common theories and perspectives used to explain why victimization occurs, such as victim precipitation theory, routine activity theory, and lifestyle theories. We will also discuss critical victimology.

1a. Victim Precipitation Theory

Victim precipitation, also known as victim facilitation, refers to situations where the survivor was the initial aggressor in the action that led to their harm or loss. The theory was first coined by Marvin Wolfgang in his 1957 study of homicide. Wolfgang examined 588 homicides that occurred in Philadelphia between 1948 and 1952 and found that in a quarter of his sample, the victim was the first to engage in physical violence, or in other words, the victim was the initial aggressor. A major criticism of this theory is the assumption that the victim and the offender enter an interaction as equals, dismissing any power imbalances or dynamics at hand (Scott, 2016).

Research like Wolfgang’s (1957) has given rise to the phenomenon of victim blaming, which occurs when the survivor of a crime is held responsible, in whole or in part, for their own victimization. Blame stems from a belief that there are specific actions people can take to avoid being harmed. When such actions are not followed, others are not likely to sympathize with the survivor as they see the crime as avoidable if the survivor had chosen to take the appropriate measures. Victim blaming can take the form of negative social responses from legal, medical, and mental health professionals; the media; immediate family members; and other acquaintances (Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime [CRCVC], 2009).

You may ask yourself, “Why do people blame survivors?” Some research has suggested that blaming crime survivors helps reassure the person assigning blame that they are safe; as long as they do not act as the survivor did at the time of their victimization, they will be unharmed (Karmen, 2020). Another reason victims are blamed is attribution error, which occurs when individuals overemphasize personal characteristics and devalue environmental characteristics when judging others (CRCVC, 2009). People who make this error view the individual survivor as partially responsible for what happened to them and ignore situational causes.

EXAMPLE

If a survivor was sexually assaulted by someone while attending a party, some individuals might blame the survivor for being assaulted based on what they were wearing or their consuming alcohol at that time rather than take into consideration the motivation of the offender.

Victim blaming can have serious and negative effects on survivors, who have been deemed at fault even though they bear no responsibility for the crimes committed against them. Victim advocates argue that victim blaming undermines survivor status while simultaneously excusing the offender for the crime (Petherick, 2017). Survivors who receive negative responses and blame tend to experience greater distress and are less likely to report future victimization (CRCVC, 2009).

terms to know

Victim Precipitation

A situation in which the survivor was the initial aggressor in the actions that led to their harm or loss.

Victim Blaming

The act of holding a survivor of a crime entirely or partially at fault for the harm that befell them as the result of the crime.

Attribution Error

An individual’s tendency to attribute another’s actions to that person’s character or personality while attributing their own behavior to external situational factors outside of their control.

1b. Routine Activity Theory

Routine activity theory was first proposed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson in 1979. Cohen and Felson (1979) suggested that the risk of criminal victimization increases when there is an intersection of the following:

1. The presence of a motivated offender
2. An availability of suitable targets
3. A lack of capable guardianship (i.e., someone who could intervene to prevent the crime from being committed)

term to know

Routine Activity Theory

A criminological theory predicting how changes in social and economic conditions influence crime and victimization.

1c. Lifestyle Theories

In the context of victimology, lifestyle theories focus on how peoples’ activities and behaviors contribute to their likelihood of being victimized.

EXAMPLE

According to lifestyle theories, choices like associating with certain groups, being out late at night in public places, or residing in urban areas can increase the risk of victimization. Conversely, taking precautions such as staying home at night, living in rural areas, avoiding public places, having a stable income, or being married can lower the risk of victimization.

These theories propose that crime is not just a random event; it is influenced by how individuals lead their lives and their environments. Individuals who lead high-risk lifestyles, which may involve activities like drinking, drug use, late-night outings, and spending time away from home or on the streets, face a significantly higher likelihood of becoming victims of crime.

These lifestyle-related risks persist into adulthood, as individuals who engage in criminal behavior increase their likelihood of becoming victims of crimes like homicide themselves. The connection between victimization and a criminal lifestyle is likely more about exposure to risk than about an inherent inclination for victimization (Siegel, 2023). In other words, individuals who are involved in certain lifestyles often find themselves near violent and dangerous individuals or places, increasing their own risk of victimization.

term to know

Lifestyle Theories

A group of criminological theories that focus on how peoples’ activities and behaviors contribute to their likelihood of being victimized.

1d. Critical Victimology

Critical victimology combines the concept of the “ideal victim” with intersectionality, or framing how identities are layered with each other, in an effort to deconstruct victim blaming by calling attention to the ways race, gender, class, and other identities shape social constructions of victimization (Spencer & Walklate, 2016).

EXAMPLE

Critical victimologists would recognize that the movement opposing violence against women has increased the resources available to female survivors of intimate partner violence and sexual violence but that women who are Indigenous, trans, or homeless may not have equal access to those resources and may be treated differently within victim services or the criminal justice system. Similarly, male survivors of intimate partner violence or sexual violence have reported difficulties accessing services or being believed when they ask for help (Cohen, 2014).

terms to know

Critical Victimology

A theory that draws attention to the social processes that victimize some people and not others.

Intersectionality

A framework that examines how race, class, gender, sexuality, and ethnicity layer on each other to multiply the effects of victimization or criminalization.

REFERENCES

Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. (2009, August). Victim blaming. crcvc.ca/docs/victim_blaming.pdf

Christie, N. (1986). The ideal victim. In E. Fattah (Ed.), From crime policy to victim policy (pp. 17–30). Palgrave Macmillan.

Cohen, C. (2014). Male rape is a feminist issue: Feminism, governmentality, and male rape. Springer.

Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. doi.org/10.2307/2094589

Karmen, A. (2020). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.

McGarry, R., & Walklate, S. (2015). Victims: Trauma, testimony and justice. Routledge.

Mendelsohn, B. (1956). Une nouvelle branche de la science bio-psycho-social: La victimologie [A new branch of bio-psycho-social science: Victimology]. Revue de droit pénale et de criminologie, 10(2), 95–109.

Petherick, W. (2017). Victim precipitation: Why we need to expand upon the theory. Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal, 5(2). doi.org/10.15406/frcij.2017.05.00148

Quinney, R. (1972). Who is the victim? Criminology, 10(3), 314–323. doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1972.tb00564.x

Scott, H. (2021, May 4). The differences in application of legislation and criminal justice practice to address issues experienced by victims of private versus public violence. Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/res/cor/PVPV-VPVP/index.html

Siegel, L. J. (2023). Criminology (8th ed.). Cengage.

Spencer, D. C., & Walklate, S. L. (Eds.). (2016). Reconceptualizing critical victimology: Interventions and possibilities. Lexington Books.

Wemmers, J. (2017). Victimology: A Canadian perspective. University of Toronto Press.

Wolfgang, M. (1957). Victim precipitated criminal homicide. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 48(1), 1–11.