Victimology and Victim Services

Theory

The early exploration of crime victimization focused on the characteristics of individuals and their relationship to the event. In the 1940s, Benjamin Mendelsohn was the first person to use the term “victimology.” He developed a typology of situational victimization factors that described the extent of victim contributions and included categories that ranged from the completely innocent to the guiltiest victim. Similarly, Hans von Hentig developed a typology of psychological, social, and biological risk factors to victimization. These included categories such as the young, the old, the mentally defective, the lonesome, and the heartbroken. These typologies were developed to explain those victim dynamics or characteristics that lent vulnerability or even contribution to the victimization. These explanations assumed an interaction between the victim and the offender, which von Hentig called the “duet frame of reference” and Jan van Dijk named “interactionist victimology.”

Beyond the victim precipitation typologies, there are two major theories that explain the phenomenon of victimization from a victimological perspective. Their focus is not on the motivation of the offender, but rather on the influence of the social structures and the individual's circumstances. These theories, developed in the 1970s, were partially in response to the data gathered from victimization surveys, most notably from the National Crime Victimization Surveys. These surveys provided new insights on victims and victimization that served as the basis for theoretical explanation.

Lifestyle-exposure theory attributes differences in victimization among social groups to variations in lifestyles. These lifestyle variations are associated with differences in exposure to risk situations, which are often influenced by social roles. The ascribed role of gender, for example, has differential role expectations. Even with increased gender equity, more men compared to women are usually socialized to be assertive in social situations and to spend more time in public places away from the protective environment of the home. Thus, as the crime victimization surveys consistently show, males are generally at higher risk for criminal victimization than are females. The achieved status of income provides an additional example for application of lifestyle-exposure theory. The limitations associated with low income restrict choices related to lifestyle: residence, transportation, employment, and so forth. Role behaviors that are proscribed, in part, by these limitations may create risk to victimization due to associations with others, inadequate security, and leisure activities, among other factors. The higher the income, the more lifestyle choices one has in these areas, including choices that may reduce one's vulnerability to victimization.

...