Applied Victimology
Welcome to Week 3
Theories of Victimology: 1
[email protected]
Dates for Seminars

Seminar 1



(A) Monday 13th October (week 4)
(B) Monday 20th October (week 5)
Seminar 2


(A) Monday 27th October (week 6)
(B) Monday 3rd November (week 7)
Lecture Outline





Positivist victimology
Mendelsohn
von Hentig
Wolfgang
Criticisms of positivist victimology
What does it mean to be a
victim?

Being a victim is not an objective
phenomenon

How we understand and define victimisation
is dependent on who we are & our previous
experiences

Can victimhood ever be a personality trait??
Positivism

What is positivism?
Positivism:
Oxford Dictionary of Sociology
(1998)
“[In] its commitment to the practical
application of its theory and research, it
claims scientific status for its quantificationoriented methodology and is characterised by
a search for the determinative causes of
crime and misbehaviour which are held up to
be discoverable in the physical, genetic,
psychological or moral make-up of those predisposed to such acts”
Positivist Victimology

Tries to base itself upon recorded criminal
statistics

Focuses attention on:

victim proneness

victim precipitation

victim lifestyle
Positivism

Goodey (2005): Victimology has prospered
the most under positivism

Crime surveys allowed positivist research the
chance to unmask the ‘dark figure’ of crime

Sought to identify victimisation proneness
through identification of victim typologies
Positivism

A strong interpersonal
relationship between
offender and victim

To analyse victims’
personal characteristics
and actions in an
attempt to understand
their individual
victimisation proneness
Benjamin Mendelsohn (1963)

A theory of victimisation

He developed a
typology of victims and
their contribution to the
criminal act
Mendelsohn's Typology of Victims

The completely innocent victim

The victim with minor guilt

The victim who is as guilty as the offender

The victim more guilty than the offender

The most guilty victim

The imaginary victim
Von Hentig

1948, The Criminal and His Victim

Explored the relationship between the "doer" or
criminal and the "sufferer" or victim

Established a typology of victims based on
psychological, social, and biological factors

His classification identified victims by examining
various risk factors.
Theory of Victimisation

Three broad classes of victims:

The general classes of victims

The psychological types of victims

The activating sufferer
Von Hentig (1948) –
general classes of victims

The Young

The Female

The Old

The Mentally Defective

Immigrants, Minorities & Dull Normals
Typology of victims

The Psychological Types of Victims






The Depressed
The Acquisitive
The Wanton
The Lonesome and the Heartbroken
The Tormentor
The Blocked, Exempted, and Fighting
Schafer's Functional Responsibility

Attempted to classify victims on a basis of
responsibility instead of risk factors

Indicated an increasing recognition that the
criminal justice system must consider the
dynamics of crime and treat both criminals
and victims
Schafer
The need to recognise the role and
responsibility of the victim, who is not
simply the cause of, and reason for, the
criminal procedure, but has a major part to
play in the search for an objective criminal
justice system and a functional solution to
the crime problem
Functional Responsibility

The functional role of a victim is to do nothing
to provoke others from attempting to injure
him and at the same time to actively prevent
such attempts

This is the victim's functional responsibility
Wolfgang (1948 – 1952)

Developed a theory measuring victim
culpability

The victim & the offender are both separate
entities and ‘mutual participants’

Lees (1997): these ideas are still used within
the CJS in attempts to prove defendants
innocent
Wolfgang's Study of Homicide

Conducted the first major study of victim
precipitation from 1948-1952

Evaluated 588 homicides and found that 26
percent (150) of all the homicides studied in
Philadelphia involved situations in which the
victim was a direct positive precipitator in the
crime—the first to use force during the acts
leading to the homicide
Victim Blaming?

Mendelsohn, von Hentig, Schafer and
Wolfgang all classified victims as having
some form of causation in the commission of
the crime

Also by Amir in one of the first studies of rape
(1971) - Patterns in Forcible Rape
Legacy of Positivist Approach

Ensured the development and refinement of
quantitative measures of victimisation

Clearly influenced the way the state, criminal
justice agencies, and various voluntary
institutions and organisations respond to
victims of crime and victimisation
Criticisms of Positivism

Individualised the problem of crime

Concentrated on specifics of individual
crimes and the link between the victim and
offender

Ignored political considerations and social
realities
Criticisms of Positivism

Early crime surveys focused mainly on
street crime & did not uncover
victimisation in the private domain

Second-wave feminism linked academic
research with campaigns for social change
& the politicisation of victimology
Break
After the break:
Victim Blaming?
Victim Myths

Stereotypes of ideal (deserving) victims form
the foundations of victim myths

Many of these myths are seen as rape myths

Victims, therefore, must be:


Weak compared to the unrelated offender
Identified as having put in reasonable energy to
defend herself (himself)
The Ideal & Not-So-Ideal
Offender

Ideal victims need ideal offenders

The offender who is, in reality, a suffering
victim


Cycle of abuse
Cycle of victimhood
Understanding Victimhood

Sally, 19, is a lone parent living in a socially
deprived area. She has found it hard to get a
full time job since leaving school.
“I take about £100 worth of stuff a week.
How else am I to provide for my son? I only
take from big stores and they’re insured for it.
I see it as a victimless crime”.
Group Work

Can the victim be more socially / culturally
guilty than the offender? Please provide
examples.

What is an ideal and non-ideal victim? –
please provide examples
Summary

Positivist victimology focuses attention on
victim proneness, victim precipitation and
victim lifestyle

Through these processes, victims (and
offenders) are labelled ideal or non-ideal

This forms the foundation of many rape
myths

Next week: feminism theories of victimology
Break
After the break: applying
positivism to the assessment
question!
Group Work

Please think of an example of an ideal and
not-so-ideal offender

What is it about their situation that makes
them ‘ideal’ offenders (and correspondingly
‘ideal’ victims) ?
Group Work

What is victim ‘precipitation’ and ‘proneness’?

Please provide examples
123-
Finally


Any questions?
See you all next week!
References (In order of usefulness for this
week’s topic)

Fattah, E. A. (1986). From Crime Policy to Victim Policy. London:
Routledge

Mawby, R.I. and Walklate, S. (1994). Critical Victimology: International
Perspectives. London: Sage. (Chapter 1: 7 – 22)

Goodey, J. (2005). Victims and victimology: Research, policy and practice.
Harlow: Pearson

Davies, P., Francis, P., &. Jupp, V. (2003) Victimisation: Theory, Research
and Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Karmen, A. (2004). Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. London:
Thomson

NB: If you are searching for a particular area, please
email me for advice