VICTIMOLOGY

Victimology is the scientific study of victims and their experiences, particularly about crimes. It emerged as a distinct
field in the mid-20th century, focusing on understanding the dynamics between victims and offenders, the
psychological effects of victimization, and the broader social and legal responses to crime. The term was first coined
by criminologist Benjamin Mendelsohn, who is often regarded as one of the founders of victimology.

Victimology explores various aspects of victimization, such as why certain individuals or groups are more likely to
become victims, the impact of crime on victims, and how they are treated within the criminal justice system. It
examines the physical, emotional, and financial harm victims endure and the legal and societal mechanisms designed
to support them, such as compensation programs, victim rights laws, and restorative justice practices.

The field also scrutinizes patterns of victimization, including repeat victimization and the sociocultural factors that
may predispose certain populations to higher risks, like poverty, race, or gender. It aims to address gaps in how the
legal system responds to victims, often advocating for more empathetic and therapeutic approaches.

By understanding victims' needs and circumstances, victimology contributes to more effective crime prevention
strategies, policy-making, and the development of support systems to assist victims in their recovery.

History of Victimology:
Victimology is the scientific study of victims of crimes, a sub-discipline of criminology. It seeks to study the
relationship between victims and offenders the persons especially vulnerable to crimes and the victim's placement in
the criminal justice system. At first (going back to the origins of criminology in the 1880s), anything resembling
victimology was simply the study of crimes from the victims' perspective.

The scientific study of victimology can be traced back to the 1940s and 1950s. Two criminologists, Mendelsohn and
Von Henting, began to explore the field of victimology by creating "typologies". They are considered the "fathers of
the study of victimology." These new "victimologists" began to study the behaviors and vulnerabilities of victims.
Mendelsohn created a typology of six types of victims, with only the first type, the innocent, the other five types
contributed somehow to their injury, and represented victim precipitation.

Von Hentig (1948) 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.

Wolfgang's research (1958) followed this lead and later theorized that "many victims –precipitate homicides were
caused by the unconscious desire of the victims to commit suicide.

Definition and Concept of Victim:

The concept of victim dates back to ancient culture and civilization. The original meaning was rooted in the idea of
sacrifice i.e. the execution of man or animal for the satisfaction of a deity.

During the founding of Victimology in the 1940s, victimologists such as Mendelshon, Von Hentig, and Wolfgang
describe victims as helpless dupes who instigate their victimization.

Today, the concept of victim includes any person who experiences injury, loss, or hardship due to any cause. The term
"crime victim" broadly refers to any individual, collective, or thing that has lost something or been harmed as a result
of illicit behaviour. Because the injury might be psychological, financial, or bodily, the victim of crime should be
viewed broadly and inclusively rather than narrowly.

It must also contain a collectivity made up of a class, group, or community of people who are of a particular race,
economic class, political affiliation, or religion and who have suffered physical or psychological harm as a result of
individual wrongdoing or group including persons in lawful authority by abusing his or their lawful powers.
Victim Participation in Crime:
Dr. Hans Von Hentig made the first-ever study of the role of victims in crime and found some general characteristics
among them which may be summarized as follows:

 The poor and ignorant and those who are greedy are the victims of offenses involving fraud.

 The victim of larceny (theft) or intoxicated or sleeping persons.

 Wanton or sensual persons may become victims due to situations precipitated by themselves.

Mendelsohn studied victims based on their contribution to crimes and classified them into the following categories:

 Completely innocent victim, e.g., children, person in sleep.

 Voluntary victim, e.g., who commits suicide.

 Victims who are more guilty than the offenders, e.g., who provoke others to commit crimes.

Sources of Victimization:
Victimization stems from a range of personal, social, and environmental factors that increase the likelihood of an
individual becoming a victim. These sources can be broadly categorized into:

 Individual Characteristics: Certain personal attributes, such as age, gender, and socioeconomic status, may
influence vulnerability. For example:

o Women, children, the elderly, and those in lower income brackets are statistically more likely to
experience violent crime, abuse, or exploitation.

o Youth are often targets of bullying or cybercrime due to their higher exposure to digital platforms.

 Social and Environmental Contexts: Communities with higher levels of poverty, unemployment, and social
disorganization tend to experience elevated crime rates.

o Lack of access to resources and infrastructure (e.g., policing, healthcare, education) in these areas
contributes to increased victimization.

o Urban environments with poor lighting and policing may lead to higher incidences of assault and
robbery.

 Lifestyle and Routine Activities: The routine activities theory suggests that people's daily activities and
behaviors influence their risk of victimization.

o Frequenting high-risk areas, working night shifts, or engaging in substance abuse may increase one's
exposure to potential offenders.

 Systemic and Institutional Factors: Institutional neglect or failure, such as inadequate law enforcement
response or insufficient protective measures, can also exacerbate victimization.

Business law consulting

o Discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation can lead to hate crimes and systemic
violence.

Persons needing special consideration:

Victims often face unique vulnerabilities due to factors such as age, gender, disability, or social standing. These
individuals are often disproportionately affected by crime and may require additional support to cope with the
physical, emotional, and psychological impacts of victimization. The criminal justice system and related social services
must adapt to provide appropriate care and protection to these groups, ensuring their rights are upheld and their
needs are met.

1. Children: Children are one of the most vulnerable groups when it comes to victimization. Their dependence
on adults for protection and care often places them in situations of potential harm, particularly in cases of
abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Crimes against children, such as physical or sexual abuse, human trafficking,
or exposure to domestic violence, can have lasting psychological and developmental consequences.

Children require specialized legal procedures, such as child advocacy centers and forensic interviewing, to
ensure they are treated with sensitivity and not retraumatized during the investigation and trial processes.
Special legal protections, such as mandatory reporting laws and child protection services, are in place to
safeguard their rights.

2. Women and Gender-Based Violence Victims: Women, especially in the context of domestic violence, sexual
assault, and human trafficking, are another group requiring special attention. Gender-based violence is often
underreported due to societal stigma, fear of retaliation, or lack of trust in legal systems. Victims of these
crimes may face ongoing threats to their safety and psychological well-being. Special services like domestic
violence shelters, hotlines, and trauma-informed care are essential to support these victims. Legal
protections, including restraining orders and specialized domestic violence courts, help ensure their safety
and facilitate justice.

3. Elderly Victims: The elderly are often targeted due to their physical frailty, cognitive impairments, and social
isolation, making them susceptible to abuse, fraud, and neglect. Elderly victims may experience physical
abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect, often perpetrated by caregivers or family members. These crimes
often go unnoticed or unreported, as elderly victims may be unable or unwilling to report due to dependence
on their abusers or fear of being institutionalized. Special elder protection units and legislation, such as adult
protective services and elder abuse laws, are in place to address their specific needs.

4. Victims with Disabilities: People with physical, intellectual, or psychological disabilities are also at increased
risk of victimization, particularly when it comes to abuse or exploitation. Their impairments may limit their
ability to defend themselves, recognize abuse, or report crimes. They may also face barriers in accessing the
criminal justice system due to communication difficulties or lack of appropriate accommodations.

Special attention is required to ensure that victims with disabilities are provided with accessible legal,
medical, and social services. This includes trained professionals, adaptive technologies, and accommodations
during legal proceedings to ensure they can fully participate in the justice process.

5. Minority Groups: Ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, immigrants, and refugees often face discrimination,
hate crimes, and other forms of victimization due to their marginalized status. Cultural barriers, language
differences, and fear of deportation can prevent these groups from seeking help or reporting crimes.
Specialized support services, such as hate crime task forces and culturally competent victim advocates, are
necessary to address their unique challenges.

Modern concept of victimology:

"Ubi jus ibi remedium"5 principle is now applicable. The modern concept of compensation is that no one should left
without a remedy.

In the UK, Compensation is payable under the 'criminal injuries compensation scheme, 1964.' The basis of the
quantum of compensation is the same as that of damages in civil injuries and the money payable is for pain and
suffering& loss of earning capacity. Under the revised scheme of 1973, it is now possible to give compensation for
injuries caused by one family member to another.

The Criminal Justice Act of the U.K. provides that if a court contemplates imposing both a fine and a compensation
order, and the offender lacks the capacity for both payments, the court is to issue a compensation order only. Since
1988, the law has required the court to record reason if no order for compensation is passed.

In the U.S.A, California was the first State to introduce laws to compensate victims of violent crimes in 1965 and as of
now, 45 out of 50 States have such programs and restitution. Legislations have been passed by all the states to
empower the courts to order compensation by the offender to the victim and reasons must be recorded when the
compensation order is not passed.

In India following legislations are there which talk about victim compensation schemes:

 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

o Section 357 is the main provision dealing with compensation to crime victims. It says that whenever
a criminal court imposes a fine, the court may order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to
be applied in the payment of any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offense
when compensation is, in the opinion of the court, recoverable by such person in a civil court.

o Sub-section (3) of Section 357 provides that when a court imposes a sentence of which a fine does
not form a part, the court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of
compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order, to the person who has suffered any
loss or injury by reasons of the act for which the accused person has been sentenced.

o Section 357-A lays down the "Victim Compensation Scheme." The court has very limited discretion
under Section 357(1), as it can give compensation only out of the fine if imposed on the offender.
However, the court has much more discretion under Section 357(3), though only if a fine does not
form a part of the sentence.

o Relevant case laws:

 In Sarvan Singh v/s State of Punjab, the court stated that in awarding compensation, it
should consider what compensation ought to be awarded to the heirs of the deceased and
then impose a fine higher than the compensation.

 In Mohammed Shah v/s Emperor, the offender was awarded one year's imprisonment and a
fine of Rs. 500, out of which Rs. 400 was awarded to the heirs of the victim.

 In Guruswami v/s State of T.N., it was held that in a case of murder, proper compensation
should be provided for the dependents of the deceased.

 In Baldev Singh v/s State of Punjab, the Supreme Court often substituted severe punishment
with compensation to the victim.

 In Dr. Jacob George v/s State of Kerala, the Supreme Court reduced imprisonment to two
months and increased the fine imposed on the petitioner from Rs. 5000 to Rs. 1 lakh to nurse
the child of the deceased reasonably well.

 The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: The Act lays down that while releasing an accused on probation or
admonition, the court may order the offender to pay compensation and cost to the victim concerned.

 The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: The Act empowers the Government to establish and administer a "Solatium
Fund" out of which compensation can be paid in cases of death or grievous hurt.
  Fatal Accident Act, 1955: Protects the interests of victims by providing compensation.

 Indian Railway Act, 1890: Provides compensation to victims in certain circumstances.

 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: Includes provisions for victim compensation schemes.

 Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Supreme Court has expanded Article 21 to incorporate the "Victim
Compensation Scheme" in cases from Rudal Shah to Chandrima Das. However, this has been criticized by
various scholars as an unbranded expansion of life and personal liberty.

Conclusion:
Victimology has transformed from its early focus on victim-blaming to a discipline centered on understanding the
rights, needs, and experiences of victims. Modern victimology advocates for comprehensive legal and institutional
support, aiming to ensure justice and rehabilitation for victims. Rights and Restitution Act (1990) 15in the U.S.
ensures victims receive services such as counseling and protection.

In the UK, the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime provides rights like victim compensation and information on legal
proceedings. India's Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 201316 expanded protections for victims of sexual violence,
following the infamous Nirbhaya case, which sparked nationwide reforms on gender violence. Payne v. Tennessee
(1991) in the U.S. affirmed the admissibility of victim impact statements in court, recognizing the victim's role in
sentencing.

The Sarah Everard case in the UK highlighted systemic failures in protecting women, leading to stronger calls for
police accountability and reforms to enhance public safety. Victimology continues to evolve, emphasizing victim
rights, trauma-informed approaches, and a more active role for victims in the criminal justice system. By addressing
both legal and societal responses, victimology seeks a balanced framework for justice.

Typology of Victims

Victim typology refers to the classification of victims based on the nature of their victimization, their relationship
with the offender, and their role (if any) in the crime. Understanding different victim types helps in designing effective
victim support programs, enhancing crime prevention strategies, and improving the overall response of the criminal
justice system. Various criminologists and victimologists have proposed different classifications of victims.

1. Mendelsohn’s Typology of Victims

Benjamin Mendelsohn, known as the "Father of Victimology," developed one of the earliest and most influential
victim typologies. He classified victims based on their degree of responsibility in the criminal act:

Type Description

Victim has no responsibility for the crime; the victim is purely a target (e.g., child
Completely Innocent Victim
abuse, terrorist attack).

Victim places themselves in a compromising situation but is not directly responsible for
Victim with Minor Guilt
the crime (e.g., a person walking in a dangerous area).

Voluntary Victim (Equal

Victim and offender are equally responsible for the incident (e.g., a duel or fight).
Responsibility)

Victim More Guilty Than Victim provokes or initiates the conflict leading to the crime (e.g., starting a physical
Offender fight and then being injured).

Victim is primarily responsible for their victimization (e.g., an offender injured while
Most Guilty Victim
committing a crime).
Type Description

Person falsely claims to be a victim or perceives victimization where none occurred

Imaginary Victim
(e.g., false allegations).

2. Von Hentig’s Typology of Victims

Hans von Hentig classified victims based on their psychological and social characteristics, which made them more
vulnerable to victimization. He highlighted that some victims might contribute to their victimization through their
behavior, personality, or social standing.

Type Description

The Young Children and minors are vulnerable due to their age and lack of awareness.

Women are often targeted due to physical vulnerability and social

The Female
discrimination.

The Old Elderly individuals are more susceptible to crimes like theft, fraud, and abuse.

People with mental illnesses or intellectual disabilities may be easy targets for
The Mentally Defective and Insane
exploitation.

The Immigrant Language barriers and lack of social support make immigrants vulnerable.

Racial, ethnic, and religious minorities may face hate crimes and
The Minorities
discrimination.

The Dull-Normal People with low intellectual ability may fail to recognize or respond to threats.

People struggling with mental health issues may be more susceptible to

The Depressed
exploitation.

Emotionally vulnerable individuals may become targets of manipulation and

The Lonesome and Heartbroken
abuse.

The Acquisitive Greedy or materialistic individuals may be lured into scams or fraud.

The Wanton Those who engage in reckless behavior may increase their victimization risk.

The Tormentor Those who abuse others may eventually become victims of retaliation.

The Blocked, Exempted, and Fighting People facing societal barriers or discrimination may experience victimization
Victims due to systemic issues.

3. Schafer’s Functional Responsibility Typology

Stephen Schafer expanded on Mendelsohn’s work and introduced the concept of "functional responsibility," where
victims are seen as having a degree of responsibility for avoiding or preventing their victimization. Schafer classified
victims based on their ability to prevent the crime or their role in the event:

Type Description

Unrelated Victims Victims who play no role in the crime and are targeted randomly (e.g., mass shootings).

Provocative Victims Victims whose behavior triggers the crime (e.g., instigating a fight).
Type Description

Victims whose carelessness or negligence increases their risk (e.g., leaving doors
Precipitative Victims
unlocked).

Biologically Weak Victims Individuals whose physical condition makes them vulnerable (e.g., elderly, children).

Socially Weak Victims Victims marginalized due to social status, ethnicity, or financial status.

Self-Victimizing Victims Victims who voluntarily participate in illegal or high-risk behavior (e.g., drug abuse).

Political Victims Victims of political persecution, terrorism, or government oppression.

4. Wolfgang’s Typology of Victim Precipitation

Marvin Wolfgang introduced the concept of victim precipitation to explain how the victim's behavior might
contribute to the crime. He focused on homicide cases and found that certain victims initiated conflicts that led to
their own victimization.

Type Description

Active Precipitation Victim directly provokes or initiates the conflict (e.g., starting a physical fight).

Passive Precipitation Victim’s characteristics or unconscious behavior make them a target (e.g., flaunting wealth).

5. Fattah’s Situational Typology of Victims

Ernesto Fattah proposed a situational approach, focusing on the context and environment in which the victimization
occurs:

Type Description

Non-participating Victim Completely innocent, did not contribute to the crime.

Latent Victim Possesses certain traits or behaviors that make them vulnerable (e.g., naïve travelers).

Provocative Victim Provokes the offender through words or actions.

Participating Victim Actively engages in illegal or risky behavior (e.g., drug deals).

False Victim Pretends to be a victim for personal gain (e.g., insurance fraud).

6. Karmen’s Typology of Victims

Andrew Karmen proposed a broader classification based on how the criminal justice system treats victims:

Type Description

Ideal Victim Perceived as completely innocent and deserving of sympathy (e.g., child victims).

Culturally Legitimate
Victims who conform to societal stereotypes of victimhood.
Victim

Deserving Victim Victim who is seen as worthy of assistance.

Type Description

Undeserving Victim Victim blamed for their victimization due to perceived reckless behavior.

Victim whose suffering is ignored or not recognized by society (e.g., domestic violence
Unrecognized Victim
victims).

Political Victim Victims of state violence or political oppression.

7. Amir’s Typology of Rape Victims

Menachem Amir studied victim-offender interactions in cases of sexual violence and introduced the concept of
victim precipitation in rape cases. He argued that certain behaviors or circumstances (e.g., alcohol consumption,
social environment) might increase vulnerability.

Type Description

Innocent Victim Victim had no role in the crime.

Contributory Victim Victim’s behavior or actions unintentionally made them a target.

Precipitative Victim Victim’s actions or choices directly contributed to the assault.

Conclusion

Victim typologies provide a framework for understanding the complex nature of victimization. They highlight how
victim behavior, social characteristics, and situational factors contribute to the risk and response to crime.
Understanding these classifications helps criminal justice agencies, policymakers, and victim support organizations
develop targeted strategies for victim assistance, crime prevention, and offender rehabilitation.

Ages of Victimology

Victimology, as a field of study, has evolved over time through distinct phases or "ages." These stages reflect changes
in how society, the criminal justice system, and researchers have understood and treated victims of crime. The
development of victimology has been shaped by historical, legal, social, and psychological factors. Scholars generally
categorize the progression of victimology into four key ages:

1. The Golden Age of the Victim (Pre-Industrial Era to Early Modern Period)

 Time Period: Ancient times to the 18th century

 Focus: Victim-centered justice

 Characteristics:

o During ancient and early societies, the victim played a central role in the justice system.

o Justice was largely private and restorative, focusing on direct compensation to the victim rather than
punishment of the offender.

o Tribal laws, religious doctrines, and local customs guided the resolution of conflicts.

o The concept of "an eye for an eye" (lex talionis) was common in early legal codes like the Code of
Hammurabi and Roman law.
 o Offenders were required to compensate victims through goods, labor, or financial payment.

o Victims held significant power in seeking justice, with the state playing a minimal role in conflict
resolution.

Example:

 In ancient Babylon under the Code of Hammurabi (1754 BCE), if a person caused harm to another, they were
required to compensate the victim or their family directly.

 In early Anglo-Saxon law, the concept of wergild (man-price) allowed for compensation to the victim's family
instead of retaliation or death.

2. The Dark Age of the Victim (18th Century to Mid-20th Century)

 Time Period: 18th century to the mid-20th century

 Focus: Offender-centered justice

 Characteristics:

o The rise of the modern state and the development of formal criminal justice systems shifted the
focus from the victim to the state.

o Crimes were redefined as offenses against the state rather than the individual victim.

o The criminal justice system emphasized punishment and retribution for offenders rather than
compensation or restoration for victims.

o Victims lost their active role in the justice process and were largely ignored by the legal system.

o State institutions, including police, courts, and prisons, assumed responsibility for crime control and
punishment.

Example:

 In colonial and post-colonial periods, criminal cases were prosecuted by the state rather than the victim.

 Victims had little involvement in court proceedings or sentencing decisions.

 The rise of the prison system as a primary form of punishment reflected the shift toward state control over
justice.

3. The Rediscovery of the Victim (1940s to 1970s)

 Time Period: 1940s to 1970s

 Focus: Renewed recognition of victims' rights and needs

 Characteristics:

o The emergence of victimology as a formal academic discipline.

o Early victimologists like Hans von Hentig (1948), Benjamin Mendelsohn (1956), and Stephen Schafer
(1968) began studying the role of victims in the criminal process.

o Research focused on victim-offender relationships and how victims’ behavior or characteristics

might contribute to their victimization.

o The feminist movement in the 1960s and 1970s drew attention to domestic violence and sexual
assault, highlighting the need for victim protection and support.
 o The rise of victim compensation programs and support services aimed to address victims' financial
and psychological needs.

Key Developments:

 Establishment of the first victim compensation programs in California (1965).

 Creation of rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters in the United States and Europe.

 Formation of victims' advocacy groups such as the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) in
1975.

4. The Age of the Victim’s Rights Movement (1970s to Present)

 Time Period: 1970s to present

 Focus: Legal recognition of victims’ rights and broader support for victims in the justice system

 Characteristics:

o Expansion of legal protections and rights for victims.

o Development of Victim Impact Statements (VIS) allowing victims to participate in sentencing and
parole hearings.

o Growth of victim assistance programs, hotlines, and support services.

o International recognition of victims’ rights through frameworks like the United Nations Declaration
of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985).

o Focus on psychological support, trauma-informed care, and restorative justice.

o Laws ensuring that victims have the right to information, participation, protection, and restitution.

Key Developments:

 The Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) in the United States (1984) established funding for victim support
programs.

 Establishment of victim/witness assistance units in police departments and courts.

 Restorative justice programs, where victims meet with offenders to discuss the impact of the crime and seek
resolution.

 Technological developments, including the use of DNA evidence, enhanced victim protection and improved
prosecution of crimes.

Key Milestones in Victimology Development

Year Event

Hans von Hentig publishes The Criminal and His Victim, identifying psychological and social characteristics of
1947
victims.

1956 Benjamin Mendelsohn introduces the term "victimology" and proposes the first victim typology.
Year Event

1965 California introduces the first victim compensation program.

1975 Formation of the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA).

1984 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) passed in the U.S., funding victim support programs.

1985 UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power.

1991 Introduction of victim impact statements in U.S. courts.

2004 European Union establishes guidelines for victim support and protection.

Conclusion

Victimology has evolved from a system where victims played a central role in seeking justice, to being marginalized in
favor of state control, and finally to a balanced approach recognizing victims' rights and the need for support and
restoration. The current phase reflects a growing focus on trauma-informed care, restorative justice, and
empowering victims through active participation in the criminal justice process. The evolution of victimology
highlights the importance of adapting to changing social, political, and legal realities to ensure that victims receive
the justice and support they deserve.

VICTIM PERCIPITATION
first introduced by Wolfgang in his 1957, Victim Precipitated Criminal Homicide
"Always take no for an answer. Always stop when asked to stop. Never
assume no means yes. If her lips tell you no but there is yes in her eyes,
keep in mind that her words, not her eyes, will appear in the court
transcript".
Wolfgang’s study examined the victim’s contribution to victimization, believing that in
many cases victims are major precipitators of homicide (Wolfgang, 1966). He
described a victim precipitated crime as one where the “victim is a direct, positive
precipitator in the crime” (Wolfgang, 1957, p. 2) and found that most of the victim
precipitated homicides involved wives killing husbands out of the frustration of being
constantly abused by them
In another early work on victim precipitation, Wolfgang’s student Amir (1967) applied
the concept to
rape in his paper titled Precipitated Forcible Rape. Amir (1967) states that a victim’s
seductiveness
can be used as a defence by an offender, also reporting that the perpetrator’s
interpretation of victim
behaviour was the important factor to be considered in rape. Put another way,
whether a victim intends
their behaviour to be seductive or not is secondary to what the offender perceives of
the victim’s
behaviour. This approach has been widely criticized as it made the actual behaviour of
the victim
meaningless (Eigenberg & Garland, 2014). Amir’s work is also one cited frequently by
those who
equate precipitation with victim blaming.

The term "victim precipitation" describes those rape situations in which the victim
actually, or so it was deemed, agreed to sexual relations but retracted before the
actual act or did not react - strongly enough when the suggestion was made by the
offender(s).
It is assumed that, there often is some reciprocal action between perpetrator and
victim. The concept also assumes that the offender rests in a passive state and is set
into motion primarily by the victim's behaviour, that the victim's behaviour is a
necessary and sufficient condition for the offense.
The term applies also to cases in risky or vulnerable situations,1 3 marred with
sexuality, especially when the victim uses what could be interpreted as indecency in
language and gestures, or constitute what could be taken as an invitation to sexual
relations.
Feminist Criminology deals with three major dimensions i.e. women as criminal,
women as victim of crime and women in criminal justice system. Victims' precipitation
theory concentrates on the role of victim in commission of crime. Objectively, its
purpose is either to hold victim responsible to some extent or to lessen the
responsibility of the Accused.
It is assumed that, there often is some reciprocal action between perpetrator and 8
victim. The concept also assumes that the offender rests in a passive state and is set
into motion primarily by the victim's behavior, that the victim's behavior is a
necessary and sufficient condition for the offense.
Among victim precipitated rapes, as compared with other rapes, higher proportions of
white victims; white intra racial rapes; victims between 15 and 19 years of age;
alcohol consumption, particularly by the victim; bad reputation of victim; residential
proximity between victim and offender and/or place of offense; victims who met their
rapist at a bar, picnic, or party; victims who were raped in a site other than their or
the offenders' homes; use of coercion by the offender; subjection of victim to sexual
humiliation and victim offender relationships involving all categories of primary 10
relationships except those between relatives.

FEMINIST CRIMINOLOGY
Sigmund Freud is considered as traditional criminologist who has not only belittled
the gravity of crime against women but also considered them as participis criminis in
cases of rape. Freud bequeathed the notion of rape as a victim-precipitated
phenomenon. If, as Freud insisted, women are indeed masochistic, rape-either in
fantasy or in fact-can satisfy those self destructive needs. Helene Deutsch, a follower
of Freud was the major contributor to the view that the female herself is responsible
for her own rape. In this view, psychoanalytic descriptions of female psychology were
merely descriptions of the male analysts' fantasies about women. Through Sigmund
Freud and Helene Deutsch, it could be established that it was not only the
victimologists dealing with victim precipitation but also some psychoanalytical
criminologists who have dealt with the concept of victim's precipitation.
Amir, 1967). These led to Amir’s work being criticised as victim blaming
and ultimately becoming a precipitant factors for greater victimology theory (Clark &
Lewis, 1977;
Eigenberg & Garland, 2014; Siegel, 2007). Ward (1995) criticised aspects of Amir’s
work, stating
that “the effect of his theorising was to make the victim partly responsible for sexual
assault and to
mitigate the guilt of the assailant” (p. 31) and Clark and Lewis (1977) claim that
Amir’s work
depends upon “traditional preconceptions and value judgements”. Feminists
recognised that the lack
of academic work criticising victim-precipitated rape could be because many people
agree with
Amir’s point of view (Ward, 1995). Although Amir’s work influenced the early
understanding of
victim precipitation, modern perspectives have viewed his positions as presumptive
and inept, even
rendering the perpetrator’s as behaviour meaningless

VICTIM PERCIPITATED CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

As defined by Wolfgang (1967), victim-precipitated homicide refers to a lethal act in
which “the role of the victim is characterized by his having been the first in the
homicide drama to use physical force directed against his subsequent slayer”
The term victim-precipitated is applied to those criminal homicides in which the victim
is a direct, positive precipitator in the crime. The role of the victim is characterized by
his having been the first in the homicide drama to use physical force directed against
his subsequent slayer. The victim-precipitated cases are those in which the victim was
the first to show and use a deadly weapon, to strike a blow in an altercation-in short,
the first to commence the interplay or resort to physical violence.
Empirical data for analysis of victim-precipitated homicides were collected from - the
files of the Homicide Squad of the Philadelphia Police Department, and include 588
consecutive cases of criminal homicide.
The 588 criminal homicides provide sufficient background information to establish
much about the nature of the victim-offender relationship. Of these cases, 150, or 26
percent, have been designated, on the basis of the previously stated definition, as VP
cases.7 The remaining 438, therefore, have been designated as non-VP cases.
victim precipitation (VP) is especially prevalent in situations where women kill their
male intimate partners.
Criminal homicide usually involves intense personal interaction in which the victim's
behavior is often an important factor.
Using administrative data from the Finnish Homicide Monitor (N =1,494), we created a
typology of homicide incidents to examine variation in VP across three factors: the
gender of the offender, the gender of the victim, and the intimacy of the victim–
offender relationship. The results from regression models demonstrated strong
support for the assumption that killings by women of their male intimate partners are
more likely to have been victim precipitated than other types of homicide.
There is considerable support in the literature for the assumption that homicides
involving female offenders are more likely to have been victim precipitated. Jurik and
Winn (1990) found that 67% of male perpetrators could be described as the ones who
had “turned the confrontation into a physical attack,” compared with 36% of female
killers. Yourstone, Lindholm, and Kristiansson (2008) reported that 51% of female
offenders but only 14% of male offenders had been physically abused by the victim
prior to the lethal incident. A study of IPH found that self-defense played a role in 36%
of the cases involving a female killer, compared with only 1% of male-perpetrated
homicides of the female partner.

Battered wife syndrome The assumption is that killings of this variety are
frequently motivated by either acute self-defense or the desire to end an abusive
relationship, that is, to escape circumstances sometimes described as “intimate
terrorism” (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). Women may be motivated to kill an abusive
partner if they are in danger of being killed or if they believe their children are in
mortal danger (Johnson, 1995; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). Prior research confirms the
expectation that self-defense is an important context of female-perpetrated intimate
partner homicide (F-M IPH); yet, it is seldom a motive for IPH committed by men
against their female partners.
In order that such reduction occur, there are four prerequisites.
(1) There must have been adequate provocation.
(2) The killing must have been in the heat of passion.
(3) The killing must have followed the provocation before there had been a
reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool.
(4) A causal connection must exist between provocation, the heat of passion, and the
homicidal act. Such, for example, are: adulfery, seduction of the offender's juvenile
daughter, rape of the offender's wife or close relative, etc.
Finally, a causal connection must exist between provocation, the heat of passion, and
the homicidal act. Perkins claims that "the adequate provocation must have
engendered the heat of passion, and the heat of passion must have been the cause of
the act which resulted in death."
In 1948, Von Hentig provided the first systematic description of the varied roles of
victims in generating crimes in The Criminal and His Victim. I He argued that there is a
sense in which "the victim shapes and moulds the cnminal" (p. 384), and that
interaction between perpetrator and victim is a kind of collusion, albeit one without
understanding or conscious participation.
Although Von Hentig chose to emphasize a psychological classification of victims, he
postulated, in passing, a four-point scale of victim attitudes:
(1) apathetic, lethargic
(2) submitting, conniving, passively submitting
(3) cooperative, contributory
 (4) provocative, instigative, soliciting. Von Hentig made no further use of this scale,
but generally extended the concept of the agent provocateur to apply to a broad
range of situations and actors
Seven years later, in a review of some of Von Hentig's concepts, Ellenberger
introduced the additional concept that it is sometimes a matter of chance whether a
given participant becomes criminal or victim: "in a scuffle it is often impossible to
determine the sequence of provocation and the vicissitudes of the 'unfortunate blow'
which makes one of the combatants a murderer and the other the victim".
By means of cross-tabular comparisons of victim-precipitated (VP) and non-victim-
precipitated (non-VP) cases, Wolfgang demonstrated the following statistically
significant associations:
(1) VP victims were more frequently black;
(2) VP victims were more frequently male;
(3) VP offenders were more frequently female;
(4) VP cases were more frequently stabbings;
(5) where females killed males, a greater proportion of cases were VP;
(6) killings between spouses were more frequently VP;
(7) alcohol was more frequently present in VP cases;
(8) alcohol was present in the victim in a greater proportion of VP cases;
(9) victims had previous police records in a greater proportion of VP cases;
(10) victims had previous police records for offenses against the person in a greater
proportion of VP cases;
(11) offenders had a previous police record in a lesser proportion of VP cases.
These observations and the character of the cases on which they were based led
Wolfgang to conclude that victims frequently have characteristics expected of
offenders and that it is probably often that chance alone determines which of two
potential offenders becomes the victim.

AGE
The age distributions of victims and offenders in VP and non-VP homicides are
strikingly similar; study of the data suggests that age has no apparent effect on VP
homicide. The median age of VP victims is 33.3 years, while that of non-VP victims is
31.2 years.
Wolfgang, Voss and Hepburn, and Curtis7 all found victim precipitation to be
independent of victim age and the location of the offense.

SEX
As victims, males comprise 94 percent of VP homicides, but only 72 percent of non-VP
homicides, showing a significant association between sex of the victim and VP
homicide.
Since females have been shown by their low rates of homicide, assaults against the
person, etc., to be less criminally aggressive than males, and since females are less
likely to precipitate their own victimization than males, we should expect more female
offenders among VP homicides than among non-VP homicides. Such is the case, for
the comparative data reveal that females are twice as frequently offenders in VP
slayings (29 percent) as they are in non-VP slayings (14 percent)-a proportional
difference which is also highly significant.

ALCOHOL
an association between the presence of alcohol in the homicide situation
and Negro male offenders, combined with knowledge of the important
contribution Negro males make to their own victimization, suggests an
association (by transitivity) between VP homicide and the presence of
alcohol. Moreover, whether alcohol is present in the victim or offender,
lowered inhibitions due to ingestion of alcohol may cause an individual to
give vent more freely to pent up frustrations, tensions, and emotional
conflicts that have either built up over a prolonged period of time or that
arise within an immediate emotional crisis.
PREVIOUS RECORD OF CRIME
A higher proportion of VP victims than non-VP victims have a previous
pQlice record. Comparison reveals that 62 percent of VP victims but only
42 percent of non-VP victims have a previous record. The association
between VP victims and previous arrest record is a significant one.

The theory of victim precipitation, as developed by Menachem Amir and Marvin

Wolfgang, suggests that victims may play a role in the events that lead to their
victimization. This theory is particularly controversial because it implies that victims,
through their actions or behaviors, may contribute to the crime committed against
them.
Marvin Wolfgang (1958) – Homicide Studies
Wolfgang was one of the first criminologists to systematically study victim
precipitation in homicide cases. In his research on homicides in Philadelphia
(1948–1952), he found that in about 26% of the cases, the victim initiated the
events that led to their murder. This could include actions like:
 Physically attacking the offender first
 Using a weapon
 Provoking the attacker through verbal aggression
Wolfgang’s findings suggested that in certain cases, homicide is an escalation of a
conflict where the victim may have instigated or contributed to the violence.
Menachem Amir (1971) – Rape Victim Precipitation
Amir extended Wolfgang’s ideas to the study of rape cases in Philadelphia and
controversially claimed that 19% of rapes were victim-precipitated. He suggested
that certain victim behaviors, such as provocative clothing, engaging in risky
behavior (e.g., drinking), or having a prior relationship with the offender,
might contribute to the crime occurring.
This study was heavily criticized for victim-blaming, as it appeared to suggest that
victims bore some responsibility for being sexually assaulted, ignoring broader
societal and structural issues related to gender and power dynamics.
Criticism of Victim Precipitation Theory
1. Victim-Blaming – Critics argue that focusing on victim behavior shifts blame
from offenders to victims, rather than holding perpetrators accountable.
2. Lack of Consideration for Power Imbalances – Particularly in cases of rape
and domestic violence, this theory ignores power dynamics, coercion, and
societal factors that influence crime.
3. Methodological Issues – Amir’s study, in particular, relied on police records
and subjective interpretations, which may have introduced bias.
Modern Perspectives
While victim precipitation theory is still discussed in criminology, modern victimology
focuses on:
 Victim facilitation and vulnerability instead of blame
 Structural and social factors influencing crime (e.g., poverty, discrimination)
 Offender accountability
In summary, Wolfgang and Amir’s work on victim precipitation was significant in
shaping early victimology but remains highly controversial due to its potential for
victim-blaming. Today, criminologists prefer more nuanced approaches that recognize
victim vulnerability without implying responsibility for the crime.

The victim precipitation theory proposed by Marvin Wolfgang and Menachem Amir
has faced significant criticism from other researchers for its methodology, ethical
implications, and potential for victim-blaming. Below are some of the main
criticisms from scholars in criminology and victimology:
1. Victim-Blaming and Ethical Concerns
 Scholars such as Nils Christie (1986) argue that placing responsibility on
victims shifts attention away from offenders, who should be the ones held
accountable for their actions.
  Feminist criminologists (e.g., Susan Brownmiller, Diana Russell) have
particularly criticized Amir’s rape victim precipitation theory, arguing that
it justifies sexual violence and reinforces harmful myths about rape victims.
 David Finkelhor (1984), in his study of sexual abuse, emphasized that victim
precipitation theories overlook issues of power, coercion, and consent,
especially in cases of rape and domestic violence.
2. Methodological Issues
 Reliance on Police Reports: Researchers like Sandra Walklate (2007)
argue that Amir’s study on rape relied heavily on subjective police
records, which are often biased and influenced by societal attitudes toward
victims.
 Lack of Empirical Rigor: Critics note that both Wolfgang and Amir’s studies
failed to account for broader social and structural factors that influence
crime, such as economic inequality, social norms, and systemic discrimination.
 Defining “Precipitation”: Researchers like Meda Chesney-Lind have
pointed out that the criteria for labeling a crime as "victim-precipitated"
are vague. For example, Amir classified certain victim behaviors (like
flirting or alcohol use) as “precipitating” rape, which lacks scientific
validity.
3. Ignoring Power and Gender Dynamics
 Kathleen Daly and Meda Chesney-Lind (1988) argued that Amir’s work
ignores the power imbalances in sexual violence, where perpetrators use
force or coercion regardless of the victim’s actions.
 Liz Kelly (1988) challenged the idea that any victim "invites" crime,
especially in cases of gendered violence, where victims often have little control
over the situation.
4. Oversimplification of Crime Causation
 Victim precipitation theories suggest a linear cause-and-effect relationship
between victim behavior and crime, which many researchers find problematic.
 Routine Activity Theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979) offers a more nuanced
perspective, emphasizing environmental and situational factors rather than
victim responsibility.
 Lifestyle Exposure Theory (Hindelang, Gottfredson & Garofalo, 1978)
focuses on how lifestyles increase exposure to crime risk without implying
the victim is at fault.
5. Modern Victimology Rejects Victim-Blaming
 Contemporary victimology has moved away from victim precipitation
models in favor of approaches that emphasize victim protection, offender
accountability, and structural factors.
 The United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims
of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985) affirms that victims should be
supported rather than held responsible for crimes committed against them.
Conclusion
While Wolfgang and Amir’s work contributed to the early development of
victimology, their theories have been widely criticized for blaming victims, using
flawed research methods, and ignoring broader social factors. Modern
criminology instead focuses on victim vulnerability, social structures, and
offender responsibility rather than implying victims contribute to their own
victimization.

Pioneers of Victimology and Their Contributions

Victimology emerged as a distinct field of study in the mid-20th century when
researchers began shifting the focus from the offender to the victim in
understanding crime. Before the rise of victimology, criminology focused almost
entirely on offenders—their motives, criminal patterns, and psychological profiles. The
early victimologists explored how victim behavior, characteristics, and social
conditions contributed to crime and victimization.
The contributions of these pioneers laid the foundation for victim support systems,
compensation programs, legal reforms, and improved treatment of victims within the
criminal justice system. Their work also influenced theories on victim-offender
relationships, victim precipitation, and the broader societal response to victimization.

1. Benjamin Mendelsohn (1900–1998)

🏆 "Father of Victimology"
Benjamin Mendelsohn, a Romanian lawyer, is credited with founding victimology as an
independent field. He coined the term "victimology" in the 1940s and focused on
studying the interactions between victims and offenders.
Key Contributions:
✅ Victim Typology (1956):
 Mendelsohn’s most significant contribution was his classification of victims
based on their level of responsibility in the crime.
 His typology introduced the idea that victim behavior could influence criminal
outcomes, laying the foundation for victim precipitation theory.
Mendelsohn’s Victim Typology:
Type Description Example

Completely No involvement or fault in the

A child kidnapped or assaulted.
Innocent Victim crime.

Victim with Minor Contributes to victimization Leaving valuables in an

Guilt through carelessness. unlocked car.

Willingly places themselves at Drug abuse leading to overdose

Voluntary Victim
risk. or robbery.

A person attacking someone

Victim More Guilty
Provokes the offender’s actions. and getting injured in self-
than the Offender
defense.

The victim is the primary

A burglar injured by a
Most Guilty Victim aggressor but ends up being
homeowner.
harmed.

Filing a false sexual assault

Imaginary Victim Falsely reports a crime.
report.
✅ Victim Responsibility:
 He argued that understanding victim responsibility could help in designing crime
prevention strategies.
 His typology became influential in victim-blaming debates, where some
argued that it unjustly shifted responsibility from offenders to victims.
✅ Legal Reforms:
 Mendelsohn’s work influenced the introduction of victim compensation
programs and victim rights legislation in criminal justice systems.
➡️Impact:
Mendelsohn’s research formed the foundation for modern victimology, shifting
attention toward the role of victims in crime prevention and justice.

2. Hans von Hentig (1887–1974)

🏆 "Psychological and Sociological Factors in Victimology"
Hans von Hentig, a German criminologist, focused on the psychological and social
traits that make individuals more vulnerable to crime.
Key Contributions:
✅ Victim Classification Based on Personal Traits:
In his book "The Criminal and His Victim" (1948), von Hentig argued that certain
personal characteristics increase the likelihood of victimization.
He identified several categories of vulnerable victims:
 Young and Elderly – More physically vulnerable.
 Women – More prone to sexual and domestic crimes.
 Mentally Ill – Less capable of protecting themselves.
 Immigrants and Minorities – Social isolation increases risk.
 Depressed and Lonely Individuals – More susceptible to manipulation and
exploitation.
✅ Victim-Offender Interaction:
 Von Hentig argued that criminal behavior results from an interaction between
the offender and the victim.
 Suggested that victims may unconsciously provoke or enable crimes through
their actions, appearance, or behavior.
✅ Focus on Victim Psychology:
 Introduced the idea that psychological vulnerability (like depression,
passivity, or aggression) increases victimization risk.
➡️Impact:
Von Hentig’s work influenced early psychological profiling and victimization risk
assessment in modern criminology.

3. Stephen Schafer (1911–1976)

🏆 "Victim Responsibility and Crime Prevention"
Stephen Schafer, a Hungarian-born criminologist, expanded on Mendelsohn’s theory
of victim responsibility.
Key Contributions:
✅ Functional Responsibility Theory (1968):
In his book "The Victim and His Criminal," Schafer proposed that victims have a
degree of responsibility in preventing their victimization.
He introduced six victim types based on their functional responsibility:
1. Unrelated Victim – No responsibility (e.g., random attack).
2. Provocative Victim – Incites the crime (e.g., abusive behavior).
3. Precipitative Victim – Careless or negligent (e.g., leaving home unlocked).
4. Biologically Weak Victim – Vulnerable due to age or health (e.g., elderly).
5. Socially Weak Victim – Marginalized individuals (e.g., homeless).
6. Self-Victimizing Victim – Engages in illegal behavior (e.g., drug user).
✅ Crime Prevention Focus:
  Schafer argued that victim behavior should be studied to create better crime
prevention strategies.
 Introduced the idea that certain social groups require protection and
intervention to reduce vulnerability.
➡️Impact:
Schafer’s work laid the foundation for victim support services and community
protection strategies.

4. Marvin E. Wolfgang (1924–1998)

🏆 "Victim-Precipitated Homicide"
Marvin Wolfgang was an American criminologist who studied the role of victims in
homicide cases.
Key Contributions:
✅ Empirical Study on Homicide (1958):
 In "Patterns in Criminal Homicide," Wolfgang studied 588 homicide cases in
Philadelphia.
 Found that in 26% of cases, the victim initiated the conflict leading to their
death.
 Developed the concept of victim precipitation – when the victim’s actions or
behavior directly contribute to the crime.
✅ Victim-Precipitated Crime Theory:
 Focused on crimes of passion and domestic violence.
 Suggested that certain victim behaviors, such as provocation, increase the
likelihood of violent retaliation.
➡️Impact:
Wolfgang’s research influenced criminal law, particularly in defining self-defense and
justifiable homicide.

5. Menachem Amir (1930–2019)

🏆 "Victim-Precipitated Rape"
Menachem Amir extended Wolfgang’s theory of victim precipitation to sexual crimes.
Key Contributions:
✅ Study on Forcible Rape (1971):
 In "Patterns in Forcible Rape," Amir analyzed over 600 rape cases.
 Claimed that 19% of cases involved some degree of victim responsibility, such
as alcohol consumption, flirtation, or risky behavior.
 His findings were heavily criticized for victim-blaming.
✅ Concept of Victim Precipitation in Sexual Crimes:
 Introduced the idea that offender behavior is sometimes influenced by victim
actions.
➡️Impact:
Despite criticism, Amir’s work encouraged greater research into victim behavior and
prevention.

6. Ellen Pence (1948–2012)

✅ Developed the Duluth Model – a coordinated response to domestic violence.
✅ Focused on holding offenders accountable while providing victim support.
✅ Created victim shelters and legal protection programs.

7. Judith Herman (b. 1942)

✅ Studied the psychological impact of victimization and trauma.
✅ Developed the concept of complex PTSD for long-term trauma in abuse victims.
✅ Influenced trauma-informed care in criminal justice and healthcare.

Conclusion
The pioneers of victimology transformed the understanding of crime by shifting focus
toward victims. Their work influenced modern criminal justice policies, victim rights,
support programs, and trauma-informed care. While early theories on victim
responsibility sparked debates on victim-blaming, they ultimately laid the groundwork
for victim protection and advocacy in modern society.