Victimology and Crime Prevention

Component-I (A) – Personal Details

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator
Paper Coordinator, if any Prof. P.K Shajahan Professor, School of Social work, Tata
Institute of Social Sciences
Content Writer/Author (CW) Dr. Vijay Raghavan and Professor, Tata Institute of Social
Ms. Saie Shetye* Sciences, PhD Scholar*

Content Reviewer (CR) Prof. John Menacherry Principal Matru Sewa Sangh Institute of
Social work, Nagpur
Language Editor (LE)

Component-I (B) Description of Module

Items Description of Module
Subject Name Social Work
Paper Name Fields of Practice in Social work
Module Name/Title Victimology and Crime Prevention
Module Id
Pre-requisites<Expected to know before Basic unders
learning this module>
Objectives
• Understand how victimology began as a field of
study and evolved
• Understand the theories of victimology and crime
prevention
• Understand issues of victims within the CJS
• Understand the victim support role of criminal
justice social workers within the system

Key words Crime, Criminology, Criminological theories

Module 3: Victimology and Crime Prevention

1. Introduction

In the previous module, we presented how our understanding of crime has evolved. Over time,
researchers have also been concerned with crime victims and vulnerable populations. While we focus
on victims of crime, we will also be looking at victimization in society and the larger social structures
that cause it.

Karmen (2010) traces the concept to ancient societies where a victim was ‘a person or an animal put
to death during a religious ceremony in order to appease some supernatural power or deity.’ Today, in
our everyday conversations, the meaning of the victim is broader, nor is it restricted to the victims of
crime. We talk of victims of natural disasters, victims of epidemics, victims of social structures, etc.
Criminal victims are largely those who are affected by an illegal act (Karmen, 2010).

Strobl (2010) discusses the process of becoming a socially relevant victim, and says that there needs
to be a successful communication of a harmful experience. This becomes relevant in then responding
to victimization.

The 1985 United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse
of Power provides a broad definition of ‘victims’: ‘Victims’ means persons who, individually or
collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic
loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in
violation of criminal laws operative within Member States, including those laws proscribing criminal
abuse of power... A person may be considered a victim, under this Declaration, regardless of whether
the perpetrator is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted and regardless of the familial
relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. The term ‘victim’ also includes, where
appropriate, the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim and persons who have suffered
harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization.

This definition brings us to the categories of primary and secondary victims. Karmen (2010) defines
primary victims as people who experience criminal act and its consequences first-hand. The term
survivors is often used instead, because of the empowering undertones and capturing resistance to
structural powerlessness of victims. Secondary victims are not immediately involved or injured but
might be burdened. These could be intimate partners, family members. The above definition includes
primary as well as secondary victims.

But sometimes the process of acquiring the victim label may be problematic. Walklate (2007a) talks
of Christie’s label of the ‘ideal victim’ seen as a young innocent female being attacked by an
unknown stranger. The ideal victim is seen as someone powerless and undeserving. The problem with
such a labelling is that some victims may not be seen as ideal and hence may not receive any support.
Very often the discussions around sexual assault stem from such a notion of an ‘ideal victim’. Apart
from this, some crimes are seen to not have any victims, for example in cases of drug addiction, the
substance abuser is often seen as a voluntary participant in the use of drugs and hence may not be
viewed as a victim. Such a position may lead to denial of services for these categories of victims.

1.1: Victims and the CJS

The adversarial criminal justice system has increasingly come under attack for its neglect or
mistreatment of victims and a larger focus on the rights of the accused. But that is gradually changing.
This shift has been influenced largely by the human rights movement, and in particular, the feminist
movement. Walklate (1989) traces the history of victim contribution in the CJS. In Saxon, England,
the victims played a more active role in criminal justice process. This role later diminished with the
State taking up cases on their behalf.

The UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power lays
down some requirements with regards to treatment of victims within the criminal justice system.
Victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity. They are entitled to prompt
redress. This redress should be available through formal and informal procedures and judicial and
administrative mechanisms should be established for this. Article 6 states that,

The responsiveness of judicial and administrative processes to the needs of victims should be
facilitated by:
(a) Informing victims of their role and the scope, timing and progress of the proceedings and of
the disposition of their cases, especially where serious crimes are involved and where they have
requested such information;
(b) Allowing the views and concerns of victims to be presented and considered at appropriate
stages of the proceedings where their personal interests are affected, without prejudice to the accused
and consistent with the relevant national criminal justice system;
(c) Providing proper assistance to victims throughout the legal process;
(d) Taking measures to minimize inconvenience to victims, protect their privacy, when necessary,
and ensure their safety, as well as that of their families and witnesses on their behalf, from
intimidation and retaliation;
(e) Avoiding unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases and the execution of orders or decrees
granting awards to victims.
The Declaration includes issues of restitution for the harm suffered by the victim, their families and
dependents. As far as compensation is concerned, the Declaration states that when compensation is
not fully available from the offender, the State should endeavour to provide financial compensation.

The Declaration is the most important international document with regards to victims within the
criminal justice system. While it suggests participation and involvement of victim in the process, that
by far does not happen.

Having taken a look at the international standards, we now look at the Indian scenario.

The Constitution, under Article 14, guarantees equal protection before the law to everyone. Various
issues have been taken up under Article 21, like compensation in criminal cases, compensation for
custodial torture, fair trial, natural justice, compensation for police atrocities, etc. Articles 17, 23 and
24 protect some sections from victimization. Article 17 abolishes untouchability. Article 23 prohibits
human trafficking and forced labour. Article 24 prohibits employment of children. Finally, there is the
right to Constitutional remedies. Under Article 38 (Directive Principles) the State is expected to
promote the welfare of all its citizens. Article 46 talks of promoting educational and economic
interests of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other weaker sections.

On these lines, there are many laws to protect different groups that might be more vulnerable to crime,
like the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, that prevents the exploitation of victims of
commercial sexual exploitation. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the Child
Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act are some laws related to protection of children. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act
abolishes the system of bonded labour. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the
various IPC sections deal with exploitation of women.

Because the victim is the person who initiates the criminal justice process, the first step is the
registration of a report – the FIR or NCR. The police are the first point of contact for any victim of
crime and we hear through the media about many less than ideal experiences here. In fact, social work
intervention in the police system has contributed immensely at this stage. We will take this up in the
next module. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. deals with this issue of information in cognizable offences.
For cases relating to crimes against women, such information is to be recorded by a woman police
officer or a woman officer. For children, as per the JJ Act, complaints have to be recorded in a place
where the child is comfortable, in the presence of supportive people - parents, social worker. Any
person’s whose complaint is refused can approach the Superintendent of the Police. Section 164A
amended in 2005 lays down the procedure for medical examination of a rape victim. Cases where the
immediate custody of the victim is also the responsibility of the State, like trafficking, child labour or
any child in need of care and protection, destitute women, victims of sexual assault, etc., there is a
procedure for segregation of the victim and accused and their dignified treatment, making shelter
arrangements is mandatory.

During the trial, Section 320 of Cr.P.C. lays down the role of the aggrieved in compounding of
offences. In various cases the courts have recognized the rights of the victims to move court in matters
of bail and closure reports. Some cases also see the appointment of a special public prosecutor
(Murlidhar, 2003).

Although there is no explicit provision for legal aid to victims, according to section 12 (g) of the
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, “Every person who has to file or defend a case shall be entitled
to legal services under this Act if that person is in custody, including custody in a protective home
within the meaning of clause (g) of section 2 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Legal aid
is to be provided to a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (12 (a)), victim of trafficking
(12 (b)), a woman or a child (12 (c)), person with disability (12(d)), a person under circumstances of
underserved want such as being a victim of a mass disaster, ethnic, violence, caste atrocity, flood,
drought, earthquake or industrial disaster.

Section 327 (2) states that an inquiry into and trial of rape or an offence under section 376, section
376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) shall be conducted in camera.

At the end of the trial, in cases of conviction the magistrate may pass an order of the fine amount to be
given to the victim as compensation (Section 357 of Cr.P.C.). Section 357A was inserted in 2009 to
prepare a victim compensation scheme. Additionally, sections 357 B and C were also inserted in 2013
pertaining to compensation in sexual assault cases and free medical treatment respectively. Following
this many States and Union Territories have prepared their own victim compensation schemes.

Apart from these provisions, some important reports that stress of similar issues and recommendations
are the Committee of Reforms of the Criminal Justice System, 2003 (Justice Malimath Committee)
and the Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law which submitted their report in 2013 (Justice
Verma Committee). One recommendation of the Justice Verma Committee was to include other
sections under in-camera trials. Following the submission of the report of the Justice Verma
Committee, there was also a push to the state governments to lay down victim compensation policies.
For example, the victim compensation scheme for rape and sexual violence cases in Maharashtra was
named Manodhairya scheme under which monetary compensation, medical aid, and counselling
services are provided to the victims. These policies do not only grant compensation at the end of the
trial but even at the stage of filing of the FIR. The compensation includes medical expenses too. The
policy includes victims of sexual assault, child victims, and victims of acid attacks. The
compensations of upto Rs.3 lakhs can be given under this scheme.

2. Understanding Victimology

Victimology in the simplest sense is the study of victims and victimization. It is regarded as a sub-
discipline of criminology and is fairly new. Karmen (2010) defines victimology as ‘the scientific
study of the physical, emotional, and financial harm people suffer because of illegal activities’ (pp. 2).
He elaborates this definition by jotting down activities of victimologists beginning with investigating
into the victim’s plight, impact of injuries and losses inflicted by the offender. Victimologists also
carry out research into the public’s political, social and economic reactions to the plight of victims.
Further, he states that victimologists also study how victims are treated by the criminal justice system.
The focus of victimologists is to understand the experiences of criminal victims and help them recover
from the trauma and hardships. They also concern themselves to the extent to which this plight is
ignored. Victimologists also try to understand the society’s response to victims, while some are
honoured, others can be stigmatized. Victimologists are interested in how victims react to their
victimization and how it affects them.

Victimology as an academic discipline originates from the work of Hentig (1948) and Mendelsohn
(1974). Hans Von Hentig in his book Criminal and his Victim dedicated one chapter to victims. The
term ‘victimology’ can be attributed to a paper presented by Mendelsohn at a congress meeting held
in Rumania in 1947. He is known as the father of victimology.

Hentig’s focus was on ‘victim precipitation’ while Mendelsohn focussed on culpability of the victim.
Hentig looked at how the victim contributed to the crime (Walklate, 1989).

Hentig (1948), in the chapter, Contribution of the Victim to the Genesis of Crime, writes that the
relationship between the victim and the perpetrator is more intricate that the rough distinctions of
criminal law. “Here are two human beings. As soon as they draw near to one another male or female,
young or old, rich or poor, ugly or attractive- a wide range of interactions, repulsions as well as
attractions, is set in motion. What the law does is to watch the one who acts and the one who is acted
upon. By the external criterion a subject and object, a perpetrator and a victim are distinguished. In
sociological and psychological quality the situation may be completely different. There are cases in
which they are reversed and in the long chain of causative forces the victim assumes the role of a
determinant” (p. 383, 384). This gives a fair picture of how Hentig sees the victim as contributing to
the crime. Hentig’s types included victim categories such as the weak, feeble bodied, weaker sex, and
feebleminded people. These create ideal conditions for being preyed upon, according to Hentig. The
young, female, aged, and mentally challenged and deranged were the first four types of victims as per
his categorisation. As far as the females are concerned, Hentig’s analysis of murders in Europe
concluded that most of these were on females in the personal services vocation which was because of
sexual abuse and then after pregnancy of ‘physical removal of the eventual claimant’ (Id. pp. 407).
The aged, for example have accumulated wealth but at the same time are physically weak and
mentally feeble and are hence victims of homicide and also show high rates of suicide as per Hentig.
Immigrants, minorities, dull and abnormal were other types that also made them weak. As for the
immigrants there was a reduction in vital human relations, there were linguistic difficulties and
psychological ties that have to be re-established and this can make them vulnerable to fraud.
Psychological types included the depressed who can be passively submitting, provocative, instigative
and soliciting. The acquisitive is a category that can be greedy and may cause their victimization. For
example, victims of financial frauds may fall to the lure of making an extra buck and this temptation
is often capitalised by the fraudsters. The wanton, the lonesome and the heartbroken may contribute to
their victimization by their risk-taking behaviour. The tormentor is a type where an abuser who abuses
the abused was victimized by the abused in the past. He gives an example of a young son who is
abused by the father and grows up and may kill the father under grave provocation. The final category
was the blocked, exempted and the fighting victims. For example, here Hentig gives the example of a
defaulting banker who swindled in the hope of saving himself. He calls him the blocked victim who is
‘an individual who has been so enmeshed in a losing situation that defensive moves have become
impossible or more injurious than the injury at criminal hands’ (id. p. 433). Here, there is a situation
of self-imposed helplessness. The fundamental trait of the victim here, is the willingness to use
dishonest methods to make money. Criminals can take advantage of such a victim who then would not
report the situation to the police.

Mendelsohn had six categories of victims from completely innocent to most guilty (Walklate, 1989).
The six are:

i. Completely innocent victim (for example, children or those who are attacked while
unconscious or a school shooting);
ii. Victim with minor guilt (often victimized because of ignorance, for example, someone who
was attacked or robbed while walking through a crime prone area, a badly lit area or at odd
hours and get victimized);
iii. Voluntary victim, whose guilt is equal to that of the offender (For example, a suicide pact, or
a person contracting a sexually transmitted disease after consensual sexual intercourse);
iv. Victim more guilty than offender - one who provokes or induces another to commit crime (for
example, the case of a person being attacked or killed by a domestic partner after years of
abusing that partner);
v. Victim who alone is guilty (for example, someone who is attacked and kills in self-defence);
 vi. Imaginary victim - who has suffered nothing at all but who accuses another falsely or people
suffering from mental disorders and believe they are being victimized. (Sengstock, 1976)

Wolfgang formulated the concept of victim precipitation more precisely. His was the first systematic
study of victim precipitation. He studied criminal homicides in the city of Philadelphia between 1
January 1948 and 31 December, 1952. According to Wolfgang “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” (Wolfgang, 1957, p. 2). He
gives some examples of victim-precipitated homicides, one of which is ‘a husband threatened to kill
his wife on several occasions. In this instance, he attacked her with a pair of scissors, dropped them,
and grabbed a butcher knife from the kitchen. In the ensuing struggle that ended on their bed, he fell
on the knife.’

He also found that 26% of homicides were victim precipitated (Id. pp. 4). He also found significantly
higher proportions of the following characteristics in victim-precipitated homicides as compared to
non-victim precipitated homicides- negro victims (negro was the term used by Wolfgang), negro
offenders, male victims, female offenders, stabbings, victim-offender relationship involving male
victims of female offenders, mate slaying, husbands who are victims in mate slayings, alcohol in the
homicide situation, alcohol in the victim, victims with a previous arrest record, victims with a
previous arrest record of assault. In addition, victim precipitated homicides have slightly higher
proportions than non-victim precipitated homicides of altercations and domestic quarrels; inter-racial
slayings, victims who are close friends, relatives, or acquaintances of their slayers (Id. pp. 11).

2.1: Measuring victimization

Crime records have been inadequate to measure crime victimization for many reasons. First, not every
victim reports a crime. Second, not every crime reported is recorded. Hence, direct questioning of
victims of crime through large scale victim surveys has been a part of the victimology endeavour. The
first criminal victimization survey was conducted in the United States in 1967 (Walklate, 2007b).
Davies et al (2003) notes the different types of the surveys - local cross-sectional sample surveys,
appreciative surveys, national trend sample surveys, cross-national surveys, police ‘consumer’
surveys. Local cross-sectional surveys select a representative sample from a small geographical area
and ask the selected sample of their experience of becoming a victim of crime between a specified
period. Appreciative studies seek for a more qualitative description of experiences. National trend
sample surveys can be larger surveys to understand crime victimization and then compared to actual
reported crimes. Cross-national surveys compare victimization rates between countries like the
International crime survey. Police ‘consumer’ surveys study the levels of public satisfaction with the
police.

3. Theories of Victimology

Two main concepts that cover the core of victimology knowledge are ‘victim precipitation’ and
lifestyle model.

3.1: Positive School:

The positive school of victimology follows from the work of Hentig and Mendelsohn. This was taken
forward by Wolfgang and Amir later. In 1957, Wolfgang wrote an article titled ‘Victim Precipitated
Criminal Homicide.’ According to Wolfgang, ‘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’ (Wolfgang, 1957, pp. 2). Wolfgang studied
588 cases of homicide from Philadelphia Police Department occurred between 1 January 1948 and 31
December, 1952. He found 150 of these cases as victim precipitated. He also found profiles of victims
and accused to be very similar. This has been discussed earlier.

Lukenbill (1977) suggests the Situated Transaction Model. He also drew on police data of ten years
from 1963 to 1972 in a California County. His arguments were that a homicide was a collective
transaction where the offender, victim and possibly an audience engage in interchange which leaves
the victim dead. Homicides, he found were a culmination of an intense exchange between an offender
and a victim. He also found that there were previous such transactions that had not resulted in death in
the cases of homicides he studied, sort of rehearsals. He saw a homicide in six stages. Stage 1 was the
opening move where the victim’s activity was the centre of focus. His study found that the victim had
made some verbal expression that was interpreted as offensive by the offender, or there was victim’s
refusal to cooperate with the offender, or some physical gesture by the victim. Stage 2 was of
clarifying the first move of the victim. Stage 3 was the stage of retaliation by the offender by either
physical or verbal challenge or killing. Here the offender also has the option of not confronting,
fleeing the scene. Where there was no murder at stage 3, in stage 4 the victim had to either stand up to
challenge or apologize. Like the offender, the victim has the option of fleeing. Instead a victim may
choose violence. In the cases of homicide, here, the author saw the victim’s move as an implicit
agreement for violence. In stage 5 the victim as well as the offender appear to be committed to battle.
This commitment was enhanced by the availability of weapons. In the final stage the victim was dead,
the offender had made one of the three moves- either fled the scene, voluntarily called the police,
involuntarily held for the police by an audience.

Amir applied victim precipitation to rape cases. This study received a lot of criticism for not just the
empirical issues. But it shifts focus from crime prevention to victimization prevention. This school of
thought has generally been criticised for its victim blaming. (Walklate, 2003). Another critique is of
relying on the available data of crime cases which can be problematic. Positivist school is also
criticized for its assumption that victims will be self-evident and hence they may focus on victims of
conventional interpersonal crimes.

3.2: Radical Victimology

Quinney and Elias are influential figures under this school of thought. The main concern here is the
role of state in producing victimization. The school of thought focuses on human rights and need to be
commended for bringing rights into focus. Walklate (2003) criticises this school for not being able to
translate their ideas to be measured objectively.

More recently Kauzlarich et al (2002) revived focus on state victimology. They lay down six
propositions of victimology of state crime,

i. Victims of state crime tend to be among the least socially powerful actors.
ii. Victimizers generally fail to recognize and understand the nature, extent, and harmfulness of
institutional policies. If suffering and harm are acknowledged, it is often neutralized with the
context of a sense of ‘entitlement’.
iii. Victims of state crime are often blamed for their suffering.
iv. Victims of state crime must generally rely on the victimizer, an associated institution or civil
social movements for redress.
v. Victims of state crime are easy targets for repeated victimization.
vi. Illegal state policies and practices, while committed by individuals and groups of individuals,
are manifestations of the attempt to achieve organizational, bureaucratic or institutional goals
(pp. 183-189).

One difficulty with this school is of the lack of understanding of victimization by many victims of the
state. But an important contribution here is the acknowledgement of the power dimension in
victimization.

3.3: Feminist Victimology

Feminist research has been a key contributor to the female experience of violence. It had questioned
the amount and nature of the female experience captured by official statistics as well as research. In
the chapter, Can there be a feminist victimology? Sandra Walklate (2003) traces the contributions. To
begin with she states that the concept of victim precipitation is seen as victim blaming which
contributes to the negligence given to victims by the court. To add to this negligence, also by the
criminal justice system in general. Another major contribution is the usage of the term ‘survivor.’ The
opposition to the use of the term ‘victim’ stems from the emphasis of powerlessness in it. As opposed
survivor connotes the active resistance. An issue of tension, she states is the positivistic orientation of
victimology, and the questioning of scientific detachment from one’s work by the feminists. Apart
from this, the issue of ideal victim is also discussed elsewhere.

3.4: Structural Violence Theory

Johan Galtung (1969) first coined the term structural violence in the context of peace research. He
relates the term with the idea of social justice.

For Galtung, “Violence is present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual
somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations” (p. 168). Structural violence is
where there is no actor that commits the violence. The consequences also are not traced back to a
concrete person. The violence, Galtung argues is ‘built into the structure and shows up in unequal
power and consequently as unequal life chances’ (p. 171). He further explains that ‘Resources are
unevenly distributed, as when income distributions are heavily skewed, literacy/education unevenly
distributed, medical services existent in some districts and for some groups only, and so on.' Above all
the power to decide over the distribution of resources is unevenly distributed’ (p. 171).

Kathleen Ho (2007) applies this thesis to the human rights discourse arguing for poverty and a
structural violence and then a violation of human rights. She points out the problematic ‘progressive
realization’ approach to monitoring the Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

Structural violence thesis also makes visible the vulnerable populations. Indeed beyond the debates
around ESCR, racial violence, caste baste violence and gender based violence stems from unequal
structures that never get addressed.

3.5: Lifestyle Approach

The Lifestyle Approach was put forward by Hindelang, Gottfredson and Garfalo in 1978 in the book
‘Victims of personal crime: an empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization.’ They
propose a theory of personal victimization where the term lifestyle refers to routine daily activities.
The argument is that individuals have some role expectations based on their age, sex, race, etc and
these are reflected in the lifestyle. Personal victimization occurs within the routine activities. They
argue that there is a link between the routine activities and the high-risk victimization. But several
factors must come together- offender and victim must have occasion to intersect in time and space, a
source of dispute or claim must arise, offender must be willing and able to use or threaten or use
force. And finally the offender should view it as advantageous to use force (Walklate, 1989).

They laid down eight propositions for personal victimization to occur.

i. The probability of suffering a personal victimization is directly related to the amount of time
that a person spends in public places.

ii. The probability of being in public places, particularly at night, varies as a function of lifestyle.

iii. Social contacts and interactions occur disproportionately among individuals who share similar
lifestyles.

iv. An individual’s chances of personal victimization are dependent upon the extent to which the
individual shares demographic characteristics with offenders.

v. The proportion of time that an individual spends among non-family members varies as a
function of lifestyle.

vi. The probability of personal victimization, particularly personal theft, increases as a function
of the proportion of the time that an individual spends among non-family members.

vii. Variations in lifestyle are associated with variations in the ability of individuals to isolate
themselves from persons with offender characteristics.

viii. Variations in lifestyle are associated with variations in the convenience, the desirability, and
visibility of the person as a target for a personal victimization (Walklate, 1989, pp.7).

A similar approach was given by Felson which is discussed in the next section. One of the major
criticisms of this approach from the policy perspective is the impossibility of asking the people to
change their lifestyle.

4. Crime Prevention Perspectives and Practice

The definition of “prevention” outlined in the 2002 United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of
Crime, “comprises strategies and measures that seek to reduce the risk of crimes occurring, and their
potential harmful effects on individuals and society, including fear of crime, by intervening to
influence their multiple causes.”

A theory oft mentioned around discussions of crime prevention is that of Lawrence Cohen and
Marcus Felson’s (1979) Routine Activity Theory. This theory takes into consideration three factors
coming together for crime to take place- a motivated offender, a potential target, and the absence of a
capable guardianship (crime triangle). A capable guardian can even include any kind of surveillance
or other informal forms of social control. This theory links changing crime rates to changes in routine
activities (Gilling, 1997). According to the two authors, “lack of any one of these is sufficient to
prevent the successful completion of a direct contact predatory crime, and the convergence in time
and space of suitable targets and absence of capable guardians may even lead to large increases in
crime rates without necessarily requiring any increase in the structural conditions that motivate
individuals to engage in crime. That is if the proportion of motivated offenders or even suitable
targets were to remain stable in a community, changes in routine activities could nonetheless alter the
likelihood of the convergence in space and time, thereby creating more opportunities for crime to
occur” (Cohen and Felson, 1979 pp.2). Routine activities were any recurrent and prevalent activities
that provide for the basic population and individual needs. And any shift in structure of routine
activities increases the probability that motivated offenders will converge in space and time with
suitable targets in the absence of capable guardians, hence contributing to significant increases in the
direct contact predatory crime rates. Sutton et. al. (2008) points to feminist criticisms of this theory
which include that in cases of family violence it is important for society to change offender
motivations rather than the victim’s presence which can be targeted by programs, thus restricting
woman’s freedom. But the same authors also commend the theory for taking the focus away from
traditional criminal justice responses that only focus on the offender which have only had limited
success.
An extension of this is given by Eck (2003), where he goes beyond the immediate roles of offender,
victim and guardian to also include indirect influence of broader social institutions. He adds an outer
triangle to Felson’s crime triangle. The inner triangle contains the offender, target and place.
Offenders are controlled by ‘handlers’ who can be parents, siblings, peers, employers or teachers,
anyone who can regulate, supervise or affect some restraint. Managers control places. Guardians can
be surveillance equipment or people who look after potential targets. Crime prevention approaches
emerging from this theory include programs focusing on the inner triangle to remove targets or
strengthening guardianship or those focusing on the outer triangle that include strengthening
attachment between offenders and handlers, and reducing crime victimization (Sutton et. al., 2008).
4.1: Approaches/ Typologies to crime prevention:
Both Gilling (2007) and Sutton et. al. (2008) divide interventions into primary, secondary and
tertiary. The primary interventions target the general population, secondary target at risk populations
(both possible offender and victims) and tertiary target known offenders and victims. Gilling (2007)
divides these as offender focused and victim focused.
For Sutton et. al. (2008), the next level of distinction is between Environmental approaches and Social
approaches. Environmental approaches can alternatively be called situational crime prevention and it
focuses on manipulation of the physical environment like installation of CCTVs or improving
surveillance through neighbourhood watch programs, improving street lighting. On the other hand,
social crime prevention addresses criminal motivations through any program that can affect the
behaviour. Social crime prevention focuses mainly on the potential offender through programs like
improving education. They can include community development initiatives that can consequently
improve community cohesiveness to reduce crime. These programs can be broad enough to include
education, employment policy, housing and health programs, but the primary focus is youth followed
by economically marginalized groups (Gilling, 2008).
5. Implications for social workers
Like with the criminological theories, the effort here was to acquaint the reader with the field of
victimology and crime prevention. The purpose here was to understand how victimization has been
understood and how it has influenced crime prevention. Criminology is also increasingly focusing on
crime prevention now. One can also see many initiatives around us that can be linked to the theories
mentioned above. Social workers would gain from understanding the issues victims face within the
criminal justice system. The module also gives a picture of structures of victimization which is
another area where social workers can contribute immensely. In the next module we look of how
exactly social workers have contributed to the criminal justice system and policies in India which will
help put things in perspective.