Important Theories of Victimology

With the advance of victimological studies, the theory of ‘victim precipitation’ came to be perceived as a negative approach to victim because it only focused on how victim’s own contribution led to his victimization. Therefore, most of the criminologists refuse to accept this theory, it being destructive in nature.

Marvin Wolfgang, who opposed the theory of ‘victim precipitation’, believed in the phenomenon, of ‘victim facilitation’ rather than ‘victim blaming’. He did not blame the victim but asserted that the interactions of the victim make him/her vulnerable to a crime. Thus, the idea behind victim facilitation is to study the elements that make victim more accessible or vulnerable to a crime attack.

Benjamin Meldelsohn propounded a three model theory of victimology and observed that the conditions that precipitate crime can be classified into three general categories as follows:—

(1) In terms of time and space, the victim being in the wrong place at a wrong time.

(2) Attracting factors and life-style also create a fertile ground for incidence of crime.

(3) There are certain pre-disposing factors such as being too young, being too poor, being in minority, being unemployed etc. which may lead to the victimization of a person to crime.

Later, Cohen and Felson (1979) came out with their ‘Routine Activities Theory’, which pre-supposes that a crime occurs when three conditions come together, namely (i) suitable target (ii) motivated offender (s) and (iii) absence of security or parental care or guardianship.

Earlier, when criminology was in its emerging stage, victimology simply meant study of crime from the perspective of the victim. Mendelsohn and Von Hentig were the first to explore the possibility of developing victimology as an independent branch of criminology and therefore, they are considered as the ‘father of victimology.’

To begin with, Von Hentig concentrated on the study of behaviours and vulnerabilities of victims of crime, such as resistance of rape victims or victims of murder. He concluded that crime victims were mostly “depressive type’ who fell an easy target to crime due to their own carelessness.

Schater (1968) concluded that there were victims who substantially contributed to their victimization knowingly or unknowingly due to lack of care and vigil. Many victims face unsympathetic treatment by the police; prosecutors and court officials, which further aggravates their woes.

Even if the offender is apprehended and brought to trial, the victims of their crime remain marginalised and do not have opportunity to ventilate that views and concerns during the criminal justice process. Most of the courts do not allow the victim to present his/her civil claim along with the criminal trial. Even if the offender is convicted and punished, his punishment provides no relief to the victim except mental satisfaction.

It has been often said that criminals and victims often have some socio-demographic characteristics such as being nearly of the same group, both living in physical proximity etc.

It has now been universally accepted that victim of crime is an identifiable person who has been harmed individually and directly by the perpetrator of crime. However, there are certain crimes, such as white collar crimes, wherein victims are not clearly identifiable or not directly linked to the crime but these crimes do affect the society as a whole.

Thus, in such cases, society in general, becomes a victim to the unlawful activities of white collar criminals. Other crimes in which society itself is the victim are homicides, felonies, national frauds, etc.

The modem trend is to study victimology as a multi-disciplinary subject. It is not only focused on victims of crime but also encompasses within it, the study of victims of traffic hazards, natural disasters, war crimes, abuse of power, corruption etc. The professionals involved in victimological studies may, therefore, be legal practitioners, judges, policy makers, law teachers etc.