Assignment

on
Five Incidents of Victimization Experienced by Myself

Submitted to:

Md. Omar Faruk

Lecturer,
Dept. of Criminology and Police Science
Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University

Submitted by:

Md. Rokon Uddin

3rd year, 1st semester,
Session: 2004-05
Registration no. CP05019
Dept. of Criminology and Police Science
Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University

Date of submission: 31.10.07

Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University

Santosh, Tangail.

Introduction:
The experience of being victimized is very familiar in our everyday life from various
contexts. To study these events of victimization scientifically, there is a new trend called
victimology. This assignment is made on selective five incidents of victimization I have
already experienced. Before analyzing these incidents, it needs to a short discussion on
victimology, concepts used in victimology, and also the historical development of
victimology.
Definition of victimology:
In a narrower sense, victimology is the empirical, factual study of victims of crime and as
such is closely related to criminology, and thus may be regarded as a part of the general
problem of crime.
Schafer (1977) has described victimology as the science which studies criminal-victim
relationship. Devasia (1989) has also expressed the same view and he also added that
victimology is an integral part of criminology.
Drapkin (1974) has defined it as that branch of criminology which primarily studies the
victims of crime and everything that is connected with such a victim.
According to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, victimology is the study of victims of
crime, including such aspects as patterns of offence, place of incident, characteristics of
and relationship between victim and offender, and the like.
Andrew Karmen, who wrote a text on victimology entitled Crime Victims: An
Introduction to Victimology in 1990, broadly defined victimology:
"The scientific study of victimization, including the relationships between victims and
offenders, the interactions between victims and the criminal justice system -- that is, the
police and courts, and corrections officials -- and the connections between victims and
other societal groups and institutions, such as the media, businesses, and social
movements."
From this definition, we can see that victimology encompasses the study of:
victimization; victim-offender relationships; victim-criminal justice system relationships;
victims and the media; victims and the costs of crime; victims and social movements.
In broader sense, victimology is the entire body of knowledge regarding victims,
victimization and the effort of society to preserve the rights of the victim. Hence, it is
composed of knowledge drawn from such fields as criminology, law, psychology,
psychiatry, medicine, social work, politics, education and public administration.

Definitions of other related concepts:

Victim: According to the UN declaration of victims rights, "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.

Victimal: It is opposed to the term criminal. Victimal refers to an individual who is

victimized by an offender.
Victimal receptivity: It means individuals unconscious attitude for being victimized.
Victimhood: Victimhood means the state of being victim.
Victimity: Victimity is used as opposed to criminality. It means the propensity of
being a victim.
Victimizable: Victimizable refers to an individual who is capable of being victimized.
Victimization: The action of victimizing, or fact of being victimized, in various senses.
Victimize: It refers to make a victim of, to cause to suffer inconvenience, etc. either
elaborately or by misdirected attentions; to cheat, swindle or defraud; to put to death as,
or in the manner of a sacrificial victim; to slaughter; to destroy or spoil completely.
Victimizer: Victimizer is a person who victimizes another or others.
Victimless: Victimless means the absence of a clearly identifiable victim other than the
doer.
Typologies of victim, victimization, and attitudes of victims:
Benjamin Mendelson (1963), one of the pioneers of victimology, developed a typology of
victims in terms of their degree of guilt in the perpetration of crime:
i) The completely innocent victim, such as a child or an unconscious person.
ii) The victim with minor guilt, such as a woman who provokes a miscarriage and dies as
a result.
iii) The victim as guilty as offender, such as in cases of suicide and euthanasia.
iv) The victim as more guilty than the offender, such as those who provokes someone to
commit a crime.
v) The victim as most guilty, such as the aggressive victim who was killed in selfdefense.
vi) The simulating or imaginary victim, such as paranoids, hysterics, or senile person.
Wolfgang (1967) has identified five types of victimization:
i) Primary victimization, involving personalized or individual victims;
ii) Secondary victimization, where the victim is an impersonal target of the offender
(e.g., a thief in a departmental store, a person traveling without a ticket on a roadways
bus, etc.);
iii) Tertiary victimization, which affects the public or the administration of society;
iv) Mutual victimization, which concerns those victims who themselves are offenders in a
given mutually consensual act (e.g., adultery);
v) No victimization, which is an act of negligible significance where there is no
immediately recognizable victim.

Von Hentig (1948) has given four types of victims:

i) victims whose injury may be the price of a greater gain, e.g., in abortion;
ii) victims who bring about the detrimental result partly by their own concurrent result
(e.g., prostitutes);
iii) victims who provoke or instigate the offence, e.g., by challenging the opponent to kill
him if he can and in an emotional state of mind, the opponent accepts the challenge
and attacks;
iv) victims who desire the injury.
Hentig has further classified the attitudes of victims as:
i.
Lethargic attitude;
ii. Submissive or conniving attitude;
iii. Cooperative or contributory attitude; and
iv. Provocative or instigative attitude.

Historical development of victimology:

Year

Event

1941

Hans Von Hentig writes an article about the victim-criminal interaction

1947

Benjamin Mendelson coins the term victimology in an article.

1957

The British criminal justice reformer Margery Fry stimulates discussion and debate about how to
reimburse victims.

1958

Marvin Wolfgang sheds light on victim-precipitated homicide. He coined the term victim-precipitation
to refer to situations where victims initiate the confrontations that lead to their death.

1959

In England, a white paper presented in the Parliament emphasizing on victims welfare.

1963

New Zealand first introduced victim compensation schemes.

1964

US Congress rejects victim compensation legislation but studies the victims plight for the first time.

1966

The first nationwide victimization survey is carried out in the USA.

1968

Stephen Schafer writes the first textbook about victims.

Shultz explained how a victim contributes to the crime.

1973

The First International Symposium on Victimology is held in Jerusalem.

1975

The International Study Institute on Victimology held in Bellagio, Italy.

1976

The Second International Symposium on Victimology is held in Boston.

Victimology: An International Journal begins publication.

1978

A lifestyle theory of victimization was developed by Michael Hindeland, Gottfedson & James Garofalo.

1979

Cohen & Felson introduced routine activities theory which is popular among victimologists today.
The Third International Symposium on Victimology is held in Munster, West Germany.
The World Society of Victimology is founded.

1980

The First World Congress on Victimology is held in Washington D.C.

1981

President Ronald Reagan proclaims April 8-14 Victims Rights Week.

1982

The Second International Study Institute on Victimology held in Bellagio, Italy.

The Fourth International Symposium on Victimology is held in Tokyo.

1984

Andrew Karmen wrote a text on victimology entitled Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology.

1986

UN declared the Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power.

1989

Lawrence Sherman, Patrick Gartin & Michael Buerger found that certain types of crimes were
committed in specific places i.e. hot spots of crime. So the attempts to prevent victimization should be
focused not on victims, but on the places themselves by making them less vulnerable to crime.

1991

The U. S. Supreme Courts decision allows victim-impact statements i.e. descriptions of the harm and
suffering that a crime has caused victims and their survivors.

1993

Braithwaite proposed a new form of justice system entitled Restorative Justice which may restore
victims in terms of property, injury, security, dignity, social support etc.

1998

Felson and Clarke made an opportunity model to prevent victimization by reducing opportunities.

Fact 01:
It was February, 2005. I admitted myself into Mawlana Bhashani Science and
Technology University (MBSTU). I, with some of my year-mates from various
disciplines, rented a house to stay. We made a contract with the owner of the house fifteen
days before the classes started. I boarded all my necessary daily usages in a room which
was newly rented by us and then I went to Dhaka to one of my relatives. At 28 th February,
the day of orientation class, I came to my room and found it unlocked and opened. The
room has nothing but a complete emptiness. Because of my losing all the necessities, I
was undone.
Nature of the incident: Burglary (theft by breaking house).
From legal point of view: Theft is an offence against property defined under the Penal
Code (Section 378). Theft in dwelling houses is specially stated in section 380 of the
Penal Code. Even the punishment for theft in dwelling house is more severe than as to an
ordinary theft. Again house-breaking is also a crime under section 445 of the Penal Code.
Instigation by victim (myself) to the offence: Under Shultzs explanation, I contributed
to be victimized by omission of preventive measures. I knew the house would be
unguarded for several days, I should have taken preventive measures to protect my
property, such as not put my materials into the house, locking it well etc.
Type of victim:

Walter Reckless (1961): Non-reporting victim. I didnt report about that incident of
burglary to any law-enforcing agency because of the fear of harassment by them.
Benjamin Mendelson (1963): Completely innocent victim. I had no provocation or
participation in case of the commission of that burglary.
Marvin Wolfgang (1967): Secondary victimization. I myself was not targeted
personally by the offender but only my property into the house. I was an impersonal
target, but my properties were in direct target of the burglar.
Theoretical explanation: Criminologists are increasingly interested in the factors that
go into a decision to burglarize. In case of my being victim of burglary both opportunity
and routine activities was present.
The three variables of routine activities theory (i.e. motivated offender, potential victim,
absence of capable guardian) were present in that incident. Opportunities, like the house
was unguarded, tin-shed, closed with a small lock etc. also instigated the burglar. Rengert
and Wasilchick noted that opportunities for burglary occur only when a dwelling is
unguarded or unoccupied.
System response to the victim: In view of section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code
the property stolen may be returned to the person from whom it was stolen, and an
innocent purchaser may be compensated for the price paid under section 519 of the same
Code, if any money is found in the possession of the theft. But the property restored
should be in existence should be in existence at the time of theft. But I didnt report it to
the police or to any law-enforcing agency. So I had no opportunity to recover my
property.

Fact 02:
Once I went to the market to by some commodities. After taking the commodities, I gave
a bank-note of 500 (five hundred) taka to the sells-man to pay for. After examining that
bank-note the sells-man gave the opinion that the note is not genuine and also refused to
take the note because of its being counterfeited. I then became a victim of five hundred
taka which was counterfeited by someone (offender).
Nature of the incident: Victim of counterfeiting bank-note.
From legal point of view: Counterfeiting currency-notes or bank notes is a crime
defined under section 489-A of the Penal Code. This section prescribes heavy punishment
for counterfeiting bank-note. It may be probable that who served me that note, was also a
victim like me. But using counterfeiting bank-note is also a crime under section 489-B of
the same Code though he might not made it.
Instigation by me to the offence: I couldnt remember the person who served me that
counterfeited bank note. Certainly, I was unconscious when I received the counterfeited
bank-note. My unconsciousness indirectly provoked the offender to use that note against
to me.
Type of victim:

Marvin Wolfgang (1967): Secondary victimization. I myself was not targeted

personally by the offender but only my property into the house. I was an impersonal
target of the offender.
Benjamin Mendelson (1963): Completely innocent victim. I had no provocation or
participation in case.
Theoretical explanation: This incident can be described under the opportunity model.
The offender has had enough opportunity to do this.

Fact 03:
I bought two kilograms beef from a local market. After returning home I weighed it
again. I found 300 grams deficits in it. The actual amount was 1.7 kilograms though I had
to pay for 2 kilograms.
Nature of the incident: The seller (victimizer) used false weight fraudulently.
From legal point of view: Fraudulent use of false weight or measure is an offence under
section 265 of the Penal Code. As an offence was committed by law, I was victim legally.
Type of victim:

Walter Reckless (1961): Non-reporting victim. I didnt report about that incident of
burglary to any law-enforcing agency because of the fear of harassment by them.
Mendelson: Innocent victim. I didnt understand what was done with me during buying
goods.
Theoretical explanation: This incident is adopted with the routine activities theory,
especially in the point that there was no capable guardian to protect it. There was also
opportunity enough to the victimizer to make me victim.

Fact 04:
When I was in class X, I used to keep a diary containing my daily activities. At that time,
I was a juvenile aged 14 years. Many of my activities with my school friends were
written down in that diary which might delinquency or deviance to my family member.
One day my elder sister read it without my consent and knew everything which was
assumed to her as delinquency. She called me and blame for some of my activities. I
became ashamed because of her knowing everything about my personal matters. I was
also afraid of her that if she told these to my parents.
Nature of the incident: Personal and psychological victim.
From legal point of view: UN Declaration for Victims of Crime defines victim which
includes ..mental injury, emotional suffering too. In this case I suffered emotionally
and began to distrust my sister. In the UN declaration of Childs Right, it is also
discouraged to see a juveniles daily usages without his consent.
Type of victim:

Marvin Wolfgang (1967): Primary victimization.

Benjamin Mendelson (1963): Completely innocent victim. I had no provocation or
participation in case.
Hentig: Lethargic attitude. I couldnt express or share the facts with my family I have
done.

Fact 05:
After enjoying Eid with my family members, I was returning back to my university
campus. On the way, during boarding on a train, I was reading a newspaper and keep my
bag under my seat. After one hour from when the train started its journey, I found my beg
missing.
Nature of the incident: Theft.
From legal point of view: It is only theft under 378 of the Penal Code and doesnt
amount to burglary.
Type of victim:
Hentig: Cooperative or contributory attitude. If I kept the bag on the hanger, the theft may
not be committed. By keeping the bag under my seat, it was out of my sight. And
consequently the thief got the opportunity to victimize me.
Benjamin Mendelson (1963): Completely innocent victim. I was unconscious.
Walter Reckless (1961): Reporting victim. I inform this incident orally to the railway
police. But they were unable as well as non-cooperative to find out my property in the
running train.

References:
Adler, Freda; Muller, Gerhard O. W. and Laufer, William S. (2004). Criminology and the
Criminal Justice System, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York.
Ahuja, Ram (1996). Sociological Criminology, New Age International (P) Limited, India.
Devassia,V.V. & Devassia, Leelamma(1992).Criminology, Victimology and Corrections,
Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi-110026.
Feldman, Philip (1993); The Psychology of Crime, Cambridge University Press.
Huq, Zahirul (2005). Law and Practice of Criminal Procedure, 9th Edition,
Islam, Md. Zahurul (2005). The Penal Code, 1st Edition, Law Book Company, Dhaka.
Karmen, Andrew (1984); Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology, Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company, Montery, California.
Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (1998); 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Great
Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp.
UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power.
Adopted by General Assembly resolution 40/34 of 29 November 1985.