Four Theories of Victimization

Victimology is the study of victimization. It looks at why some individuals are targeted and not others e.g., their relationship with the perpetrator of the crime etc., and what the emotional and psychological effects of being victimized may be. In many ways, victims of crime have become largely “invisible” within the Criminal Justice System, as lawyers – rather than victims – argue their case for them, with the victim largely adopting the role of a “witness” who testifies on their own behalf, etc. In recent years, victims have gained somewhat more of a voice, as in certain cases they are allowed to make victim impact statements, as a means of influencing, not the outcome of a case but the sentencing, once a defendant has been found guilty of the charges i.e., the severity/degree of punishment etc. The purpose of this article is to look at four different theories of victimization, and how these can help us better understand how violent crimes occur, along with some of the common prejudices that certain people have concerning victims and victimization.

Perhaps one of the first really influential studies on victimization was that carried out by Marvin Wolfgang in 1958. In his work, “Patterns in Criminal Homicide”, he analyzed Philadelphia police records, concerning close to 600 murders, and found that many resulted from trivial disputes and conflicts, which the victim originally initiated – such as disputes over a few dollars lost in a card game etc. Because of this he coined the term “Victim Precipitation”, to describe this phenomenon. This research was picked up on by the legal community, who now had some “research” basis to show/demonstrate that a victim might not be as innocent as they claimed. This research also backed up some of Mendelsohn’s (1956) victim typologies, which included victims who were “more guilty” than their perpetrators etc. One of the unfortunate consequences of the legal profession taking research that related to a very specific type of offense, and generalizing it to cover others, was that it came to be used in rape and sexual assault cases as a means to defend and diminish an offender’s perceived responsibility e.g., the clothes a victim was wearing at the time started to be seen as significant, and/or a victim’s sexual history became a tool by which a victim could be judged to have precipitated – led the defendant on – their own assault etc. This caused many feminist Criminologists/Victimologists to start using the term “Survivor” rather than “Victim” to refer to women who’d been sexually assaulted/raped.

Another theory that attempts to explain why some people are victimized and others aren’t, is the “Lifestyle Theory”. This suggests that if you live a “risky” lifestyle, such as staying out late at night, going to bars and clubs which might have a history and/or reputation for violence and crime, there is a higher chance/likelihood that you will become a victim of crime. This theory aims to distinguish between contribution and culpability. Victim Precipitation suggests that the victim not only contributes to their victimization – such as starting an argument, over a dollar bet they lost – but that they are also culpable/to blame for the potential consequences of doing so. “Lifestyle Theory”, removes the culpability aspect, whilst recognizing how somebody’s actions and behaviors may contribute, or facilitate, their victimization e.g., if your lifestyle isn’t one where safety is considered, you may leave a window open, on a hot day, when you go out etc., if somebody climbs in and steals your laptop, you’re not to blame for that, but by leaving your window open you contributed to/facilitated the crime i.e., if you had closed and locked the window the would-be burglar may have not taken the opportunity etc. When looking at lifestyle theories it is important to place the culpability fully on the burglar, and not try to argue that such a temptation was impossible for them to resist, and because of this the homeowner/victim shares some of the blame etc.

Deviant Place Theory (Siegel, 2006) makes the assertation that if you hang around in bad places, bad things are going to happen to you. The focus here is on the place/location rather than the lifestyle, as residents who live in a bad neighborhood, may have the most risk-adverse lifestyle but still be victimized – simply because of where they live/spend their time. The theory is almost fatalistic in suggesting that if you have to be in such places because that’s where you work, or where the bus/transport interchange is, or because that’s where an elderly relative lives who you visit etc., there is little you can do to avoid being victimized i.e., you are in that high-crime place, so you ae likely to be a victim of crime.

The fourth theory, Routine Activities Theory (RAT), acknowledges the importance of place, in recognizing that the location where the “motivated offender”, and the “suitable victim” interact in a criminal act is the one thing that both have in common. However, that place may not be a “bad” place, it could simply be where both happen to be at a particular time e.g., a person who commits robberies happens to have ducked into a convenience store – with no history of crime – at the same time as an office worker who stopped in to get some milk etc., one follows the other out into the parking lot and commits a mugging. Both were engaged in routine activities, and their paths just happened to cross. The theory for its simplicity, is able to ask a lot of questions, such as why do both parties use the same convenience store? Is it close to where two distinct neighborhoods meet geographically, or does the street robber visit a friend close by? There are also questions as to what constitutes a “suitable victim” that is attractive to a “Motivated Offender” etc. Sometimes this may be clear, such as a sexual predator who targets 15-year-old girls i.e., a 15-year-old girl who is accessible, becomes a suitable victim in the presence of such a criminal.

In many ways no one theory will get it 100%, without being so basic (or having so many exceptions and caveats) as to not make any contribution to our understanding, however by recognizing the basic ideas and concepts that a theory puts forward, and allowing for the fact that it may contribute rather than fully explain how crimes occur, we should be able to take something from these four theories to expand our knowledge.