Victim Theories

The primary thrust of criminal justice has always been thought of as dealing with perpetrators: those who commit crime. Focus on the victim of crime, however, has ebbed and flowed throughout the history of criminal justice. It is often thought that the victim is the “forgotten entity” in the criminal justice system. Beginning in the 1970s, that attitude began to change as the discipline of victimology came into its own. Champion defines victimology as “a criminological subdiscipline that examines the role played by the victim in a criminal incident and in the criminal process” (1997: 128). Karmen similarly defines it as “the scientific study of the physical, emotional, and financial harm people suffer because of criminal activities” (2001: 9). It is also often thought that the victim is twice victimized—once by the criminal and again by the system. One of the major discussions within victimology is what, exactly, it should entail. Because it is a subset of criminology, many believe victimology should be limited to illegal activities. Victimologists, however, have difficulty reaching a consensus. Some would agree with the criminologists who believe that victimization should be limited to criminal victimization, others believe a broader approach should be taken. This approach would encompass victims of oppressive political regimes, natural and human-made disasters, and even accidents. The goals of such a broad-based victimology would include “developing strategies for crisis intervention, short-run relief and long term solutions in order to alleviate human suffering” (Karmen 2001: 21). Elias (1986) sees the line dividing illegal and (harmful) legal behaviors as artificial and politically determined.

According to Karmen (2001), the consensus among victimologists seems to be for victimologists to focus on criminal victimization. This is necessary, he says, to “rein in the boundaries of the field in order to make it manageable for the practical purposes of holding conferences, publishing journals, writing textbooks and teaching college courses” (2001: 22). It would seem that both Flynn (1982) and Fattah (1991) would agree with such an approach. This (strategically) limited approach to the study of victimology takes a holistic approach to the victim. It seeks to identify what happens to the victim from victimization through to the end (when a suspect is convicted). It looks to identify ways in which the system can better assist the victim, whether it is simply by providing information to the victim (as to what will happen, when it will happen, etc.) or by providing opportunities for the victim to receive treatment and/or financial assistance. In other words, the study of victimology at its most general level seeks ways to identify the role of victims and determine how best to restore victims to where they were before they were victimized. Consistent with Karmen and other leading victimologists, this entry focuses on criminal victimization only.

As the victims of criminality have been rediscovered, so, too, has the issue of what role, if any, victims play in their victimization. Some would argue that victims are just that—victims—and as such play no role in their victimization. Some would argue that to look at the [Page 1670]victim's role is to blame the victim and that this approach has no place in the study of victimology. Contributing to this approach is the theory that victims somehow cause their victimization. J. T. Bittenbinder, for example, says that criminals look for “sheep,” and he cautions people (especially females) to be confident in all their actions. The idea of victim precipitation, however, has a long history and should be differentiated from victim facilitation and victim provocation. Victim “precipitation” suggests that the victim knowingly contributed to the victimization. One example of precipitation might be the individual who “flashes” a large wad of money in paying for an item and then is subsequently robbed. Victim “facilitation” occurs when individuals “unknowingly, carelessly, negligently, and inadvertently make it easier for the criminal to commit a theft” (Karmen 2001: 101). Victim “provocation” suggests that the victim provoked the criminal and subsequently “lost” the fight. An example of a victim of provocation might be the husband who calls his wife a horrible cook and is subsequently knocked out when she hits him with a frying pan. In no way should it be assumed that any of these actions remove the responsibility for the criminality, but they do serve to suggest (at least to some people) that the victim's role in the crime should be looked at. Although perhaps not theories of victimization per se, these ideas should nonetheless be included in an objective study of victimology.

...