INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY

Criminology is the study of the law enforcement and criminal justice system. A person
looking for a career in criminal justice will very likely first seek to earn a criminology degree.
While criminal justice and criminology are certainly related fields, they are not identical. It is
a branch of sociology and has, in effect, been studied in one way or another for thousands of
years1.

"Criminology" is derived from the Latin crimen, which means accusation, and the
transliterated Greek logia, which has come to denote "the study of," therefore the study of
crime.

INTRODUCTION TO VICTIMOLOGY

The term victimology is not new. In fact, Benjamin Mendelsohn first used it in 1947 to
describe the scientific study of crime victims. Victimology is often considered a subfield of
criminology, and the two fields do share much in common. It is the study of the etiologic
causes of victimization, its consequences, how the criminal justice system accommodates and
assists victims, and how other elements of society, such as the media, deal with crime
victims2.

DEFINITION OF VICTIMS

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a victim is defined as –

“A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or

action3.”

According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, a victim is defined as –

“One that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent, such as –

(a) one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions,
(b) one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment4.”

ROLE OF VICTIMS IN CRIMES – VICTIM PRECIPITATION, VICTIM FACILITATION

AND VICTIM PROVOCATION

Victim precipitation is defined as the extent to which a victim is responsible for his or her
own victimization. The concept of victim precipitation is rooted in the notion that, although

1
The Balance Careers, “What Is Criminology?” (July 28, 2018), https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-
criminology-974589
2
The Sage Pub UK, “Introduction to Victimology”, https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-
binaries/83271_Chapter_1.pdf
3
Oxford Dictionary, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/victim
4
Merriam Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/victim
some victims are not at all responsible for their victimization, other victims are. In this way,
victim precipitation acknowledges that crime victimization involves at least two people—an
offender and a victim—and that both parties are acting and often reacting before, during, and
after the incident. Identifying victim precipitation does not necessarily lead to negative
outcomes. It is problematic, however, when it is used to blame the victim while ignoring the
offender’s role.

Victim Facilitation occurs when a victim unintentionally makes it easier for an offender to
commit a crime. A victim may, in this way, be a catalyst for victimization. A woman who
accidentally left her purse in plain view in her office while she went to the restroom and then
had it stolen would be a victim who facilitated her own victimization. This woman is not
blameworthy—the offender should not steal, regardless of whether the purse is in plain view.
But the victim’s actions certainly made her a likely target and made it easy for the offender to
steal her purse. Unlike precipitation, facilitation helps understand why one person may be
victimized over another but does not connote blame and responsibility.

Victim provocation occurs when a person does something that incites another person to
commit an illegal act. Provocation suggests that without the victim’s behaviour, the crime
would not have occurred. Provocation, then, most certainly connotes blame. In fact, the
offender is not at all responsible. An example of victim provocation would be if a person
attempted to mug a man who was walking home from work and the man, instead of willingly
giving the offender his wallet, pulled out a gun and shot the mugger. The offender in this
scenario ultimately is a victim, but he would not have been shot if not for attempting to mug
the shooter.

TYPES OF VICTIMS OF CRIMES

In the mid-1900s, many scholars and criminologists studied the developments in the society.
Many scholars classified victims on the basis of several factors like age, class, economic
class, etc.

The main proponents of these classifications were –

1. Hans von Hentig,

2. Benjamin Hendelsohn,
3. Stephen Schafer,
4. Marvin Wolfgang,
5. Menachim Amir.
CLASSIFICATION OF VICTIMS BY HANS VON HENTIG

Hans looked at the criminal-victim dyad, thus recognizing the importance of considering the
victim and criminal not in isolation but together. He tried to identify the characteristics of the
victims to understand the risks of victimization. He considered that victims might act as
agents of crime provocation on the basis of their characteristics.

He classified victims into 13 different categories –

1. Young,
2. Females,
3. Old,
4. Immigrants,
5. Depressed,
6. Mentally deranged,
7. Acquisitive,
8. Dull normals,
9. Minorities,
10. Wantons,
11. Heartbroken,
12. Tormentor,
13. Fighting/exempted.

The young, females or old could be victimised due to their high vulnerability or risk taking
behaviour. The immigrants, minorities and dull normal could be victimised due to their social
status. The mentally deranged are more prone to threats as they do not know how to respond
to the environment or threats.

The depressed, acquisitive, wanton, and heartbroken can be victimised because of their
mental state, greed or desire of a relationship.

CLASSIFICATION OF VICTIMS BY BENJAMIN MENDELSOHN

Benjamin Mendelsohn is known as the father of Victimology. As an attorney, he became

interested in the relationship between the victim and the criminal as he conducted interviews
with victims and witnesses and realized that victims and offenders often knew each other and
had some kind of existing relationship. He then created a classification of victims based on
their culpability, or the degree of the victim’s blame.

He classified the victims into 6 different categories –

1. Completely innocent victim – a victim who bears no responsibility at all for

victimization: victimised simply because of his or her nature, such as a child.
2. Victim with minor guilty – a victim who is victimised due to ignorance; a victim who
inadvertently places himself or herself in harm’s way.
 3. Voluntary victim – a victim who bears as much responsibility as the offender. For
instance, a person who enters into a suicide pact.
4. Victim more guilty than offender – a victim who instigates the crime or his
victimization.
5. Most guilty victim – a victim who is victimised as a result of a crime perpetuated by
him.
6. Imaginary victim – a victim who is not victimised at all but imagines his
victimisation.

CLASSIFICATION OF VICTIMS BY STEPHEN SCHAFER

One of the earliest victimologists, Stephen Schafer wrote The Victim and His Criminal: A
Study in Functional Responsibility. Much like von Hentig and Mendelsohn, Schafer also
proposed a victim typology. Using both social characteristics and behaviors, his typology
places victims in groups based on how responsible they are for their own victimization. In
this way, it includes facets of von Hentig’s typology based on personal characteristics and
Mendelsohn’s typology rooted in behavior. He argued that people have a functional
responsibility not to provoke others into victimizing or harming them and that they also
should actively attempt to prevent that from occurring.

He classified the victims into 7 different categories –

1. Unrelated victims – victims with no responsibility,

2. Provocative victims – victims with responsibility,
3. Precipitative victims – some degree of responsibility,
4. Biologically weak victims – no responsibility,
5. Socially weak victims – no responsibility,
6. Self-victimizing victims – total responsibility,
7. Political victims – no responsibility.

CLASSIFICATION OF VICTIMS BY MARVIN WOLFGANG

The first person to empirically investigate victim precipitation was Marvin Wolfgang in his
classic study of homicides occurring in Philadelphia from 1948 to 1952. He examined some
558 homicides to see to what extent victims precipitated their own deaths. In those instances
in which the victim was the direct, positive precipitator in the homicide, Wolfgang labeled
the incident as victim precipitated. For example, the victim in such an incident would be the
first to brandish or use a weapon, the first to strike a blow, and the first to initiate physical
violence. He found that 26% of all homicides in Philadelphia during this period were victim
precipitated.

He determined that in many cases the victim and the offender were known to each other. He
also found that most victim precipitated homicides involved male offenders and male victims
and that the victim was likely to have a history of violent offending himself. Alcohol was also
likely to play a role in victim-precipitated homicides, which makes sense, especially
considering that Wolfgang determined these homicides often started as minor altercations
that escalated to murder.

Since Wolfgang’s study of victim-precipitated homicide, others have expanded

his definition to include felony-related homicide and sub-intentional homicide.
Sub-intentional homicide occurs when the victim facilitates his or her own demise by using
poor judgment, placing himself or herself at risk, living a risky lifestyle, or using alcohol or
drugs.

CLASSIFICATION OF VICTIMS BY MENACHIM AMIR

He examined the extent to which victims precipitated their own rapes and identified common
attributes of victim-precipitated rape. Amir labelled almost 1 in 5 rapes as victim precipitated.
He found that these rapes were likely to involve alcohol and that the victim was likely to
engage in seductive behaviour, wear revealing clothing, use risqué language, and have a bad
reputation. What Amir also determined was that it is the offender’s interpretation of actions
that is important, rather than what the victim actually does.

In this way, the victim may be viewed as being “bad” in terms of how women should behave
sexually. He may then choose to rape her because of his misguided view of how women
should act, because he thinks she deserves it, or because he thinks she has it coming to her.
Amir’s study was quite controversial—it was attacked for blaming victims, namely women,
for their own victimization.

CONCLUSION

In the present day situation in India, victims are viewed very differently. The scope of
criminology and victimology have widened largely. The law enforcement agencies,
correctional institutes, jails, school counsellors, etc., are using the basic principles of
criminology and victimology to understand the reasons behind crimes.

Crimes are caused due to various reasons like politics, religion, social conditions, economic
conditions, etc. The offenders are mostly influenced by the factors and the environment
around them. Crime causation is an amalgamation of various factors and the personality of
the offender.

It is also essential to understand the relationship between victims and offenders. There are
times when the victim and the offender are familiar. While in some cases, the victim and the
offender have no previous history.

Victims in India are protected under various statutes and legislations. There are several
NGOs, government agencies and other such groups which try to safeguard the victims. It is
very important for a nation to provide facilities to rehabilitate the victims. The concept of
victim shaming or blaming, especially in crimes like rape, should not be acceptable by the
society at large.

In my personal opinion, it is pertinent that the legislators and the judiciary understand the
victims, their characterization and crime causation. For laws to effectively regulate the
behaviour of the society, it is important that the victim-offender equation should be studied
in-depth.