Samenvatting - Victimologie (B001508C)

VICTIMOLOGIE
1. Origin and concepts
History
The origin

Victimology

 The scientific study of the extent, nature, and causes of (criminal) victimization, its consequences for the
individuals involved, and societal responses, particularly those of the police, criminal justice system, as well as
voluntary and welfare services (VWS)
o SO: Victimology is the scientific study of crime victims. It looks at how people become victims, how
they are affected by crime, and how society and the justice system respond to them.
o Definition from victimology world society
o Criminal between brackets  might be exam question
 Criminologist build victimology as a discipline
 it’s often considered a subdiscipline:
o Psychiatry, law, social work
o However, criminologists have the greatest influence
o An essential component of offender studies within criminology, it has thus become an integral part of
criminological sciences

Who is the victim

 The people who expose themselves to violence will have more chance of becoming a victim of violence
 This concept was created by victim surveys
o Elder women were most scared to become a victim

Leopold Szondi: genotropism (1930s)

 In the bellum: between WO I and WO II  start of victimology
 The first traces that we see in thinking about victims is from Leopold Szondi, with an untested theory (so don’t
believe it) called Genotropism
 Theory: Reciprocal attraction of the same/similar recessive genes influencing human behavior (instinct).
o Genotropism means that people are unconsciously drawn to others who share similar hereditary traits.
Szondi believed that genetic factors influence our choices — like who we marry, befriend, or even come
into conflict with
 Murderers would be able to find their lover based on other things
 So why would you go for this person, and how come certain people become more or are more
likely to become victims of crimes?  It has something to do with genes
 However, this was not proven (it was just a theory); BUT it led to thinking about
victimization and people started asking questions: why do people become victims? Is
it a coincidence, or is there something behind it?
o Well, there appears to be something behind that. Not everyone had an equal
opportunity to become a victim; some are more likely to become a victim
than others

,Some people are more likely to become a victim than others

Ted Bundy (1946-1989): Confirmed 36 victims in the 1970s

 Who is Ted Bundy?
o Serial killer in the US
o He had 36 confirmed victims in 1970s  all of them were female, he selected his victims (he had
certain criteria), we call it victim selection  But there had to be an opportunity
o He recived love letters from women while he was in prison
o He was good in convincing people
 Victim Selection:
o A matter of opportunity
o Example: a serial killer is at a café, and people walk in so there is an opportunity, BUT that does not
mean that they kill everybody that walks in. They make a certain selection
 He claimed that he could identify a potential victim by the way she walks down the street,
the way she carries her head, her body language, etc.  not random
o Research confirms that victims exhibit certain typical body language, especially in the way they walk
 he was looking for vulnerable women
o Psychopaths are more accurate in recognizing potential victims (several studies point this out)

First mention of 'victimology'

 1947: Mendelsohn was the first person who mentioned “victimology” during the presentation of a paper…
Mendelsohn is considered the spiritual father of the victim movement. He said that we need to look at the role
of victims, because at that point in criminology the focus was always on the perpetrator and the crime but
never on the victim, so he came with the idea to change that whole narrative
 Werthem (1949) also advocates for a "crime victim-centered" science
o Focused particularly on murder
 In WO II there was mass victimization
o Criminologist were only interested in the criminal not in the victim

First systematic investigation into crime victims by von Hentig (1941, 1948). (Von Hentig: mogelijk begrip examen)

 He was the first one to address the roll of victims in crimes
o He was the first to state that the victim may not be as neutral as we thought, and that they play an
active role in the way that crime occurs
 The came with the idea of “victim proneness”, he made a classification (categorization) based
on the traits of victims … Where he stated that some people are more likely to become victims
because of their traits (young, old, female, drunk, …)
 The victim might play a role in the establishment of the crime
 He wrote a book
o "The Criminal and his Victim" (1948). Part 4: "The Victim's contribution to the genesis of the crime."
 Critique of the one-dimensional perspective within criminology
"The law considers certain results and the final moves which lead to them. Here it makes a
clear-cut distinction between the one who does and the one who suffers. Looking into the
genesis of the situation, in a considerable number of cases, we meet a victim who consents
tacitly, cooperates, conspires, or provokes. The victim is one of the causative elements" (p.
436).
 To understand crime, we need to include the victim!

 Conclusion: This is the first study within “victimology”, but in the beginning - they focused on
the “victim precipitation” (The victim plays an active role – either intentionally or
unintentionally- in starting, provoking or escalating the events that lead to their victimization)
 However, in the 70’s there was a lot of critique on this way of thinking, and they called it “victim
blaming”

,In the years that followed ‘50-’60, there were several studies

Number of theoretical studies (without empirical research

 On
o Victim types (What kind of victims?)
o The relationship between victim and offender (Partners? Did they know each other?)
o The role victims play in certain criminal phenomena
 Mendolsohn (1956): he spoke of “victim culpability”, and he developed a typology related to the degree of
victim blame, creating six categories in which he classified victims depending on how much responsibility they
had for their own victimization
 1) Completely innocent victim (child)
 …
 6) Most guilty victim (where the victim is the main cause of the crime)

Number of empirical studies:

 Murder, rape, theft, assault, fraud, extortion, ...
 Martin Wolfgang: "victim precipitated criminal homicide" (1957)
o He was the first criminologist who conducted real empirical research on victim precipitation, and
looked into 588 homicide cases in Philadelphia between 1948-1952
o Found: He found that in 26% of homicides, the victim was the first to engage violence (used physical
force or threats)
o Main message: some victims, especially in violent crimes like homicide, may have played an active role
in triggering the incident … He called it “victim precipitation” (aandeel van het slachtoffer)
 Menachem Amir: "Victim precipitated forcible rape" (1967)
o He applied the concept of victim precipitation – previously developed by Martin Wolfgang for homicide
– to the crime of rape
o Active 'contribution': accepting a drink from a stranger, riding with a stranger
 Contribution = facilitation
o Passive 'contribution': not reacting strongly enough to sexual advances
 This sounds like an excuse (ex: you shouldn’t have worn a short skirt; you shouldn’t have went
through that street)
o Examples: alcohol, "reputation," place of residence, meeting place, ...
 Reputation: someone who picks up girls a lot
o NO excuse for the offender
 But your gut feeling will say: ‘this is not ok’

The 70’s: period of critique

 The following three individuals are considered the founders of victimology (the study of victimization), but
their perspective was not particularly victim-friendly. That’s why their work received a lot of criticism in the
1970s, mainly from feminist scholars, for containing too much victim blaming.
 First attention to the victim in criminology (previously no attention at all): was focused on the role of the victim
in the occurrence of the crime
o Theoretical studies without empirical basis (these are typologies of victims)
 Von Hentig (1948): Victim proneness created a categorization based on the characteristics of
the victim, which, according to him, made them more likely to become a victim
 Mendelsohn (1956): Victim culpability developed a typology related to the victim’s blame,
dividing victims into six categories based on the degree to which they were responsible for
their own victimization—ranging from completely innocent to fully guilty
o First empirical research
 Wolfgang (1957): Victim precipitation analyzed 588 case files, in which he argued that in ¼ of
the cases, women themselves contributed to the fact that they were murdered—for example,
by initiating the attack

,Victim precipitation or victim-blaming?

Victim precipitation or victim-blaming? Especially in the 1970s, victim precipitation was increasingly seen as victim-
blaming. That is the reason why studies on victim precipitation (het aandeel van slachtoffers bij de totstandkoming van
criminaliteit) was declining. Victim preciptated crime, means that the victim has something to do with the way that the
crime occurs (for example is the first to attack), however now a days it is very sensitive because of the way that they
“blame the victim”

 At the core of these pioneers: victims of crimes (robbery, rape, murder, ...) this was their focus (not victims of
accidents or natural disasters)

Victim precipitation research has contributed to two major criminological theories  see second lecture

 Lifestyle theory (Hindelang et al., 1978)
o This theory was developed based on the results of a large-scale survey study among victims, in which
researchers examined what common characteristics the victims shared.
 Main finding: There is a connection between the likelihood of victimization and individual
(differences in) lifestyle activities (e.g., young people have different lifestyle activities than
older people).
 Certain lifestyle activities lead to a higher level of exposure to risky situations at
specific times and places.
o Example: Young people often have a nightlife-oriented lifestyle  this
increases the likelihood of victimization related to going out (e.g., assaults at
bars or parties)
 Routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979)
o Theory states that crime occurs when three elements come together:
 (1) A motivated offender – someone with the intent to commit a criminal act
 (2) A suitable target – attractive in terms of value, visibility, accessibility, or lack of protection
 (3) The absence of capable guardianship – a lack of social control or supervision

At the core of these pioneers: victims of crimes

 1950s-1960s
o Sutherland looked at offenders of regulations
 Also during the 1970s-1980s due to the emergence of professional assistance for crime victims

1979: establishment of the World Society of Victimology

 Researches go to the WSV to present their data and results

,The evolution

Gradual broadening during the 1970s of the research focus

 They started looking into other phenomena
o Similarities with war victims, prisoners in camps, and certain types of aggression and discrimination
(Nazism, Apartheid)
 Criminologists explore other crimes
o White-collar crime, environmental crime, state crimes, ...
 Who is the victim here, and what about perception?
 Ex: state crime: pefas  chemical to reduce fire  the governance regulated this chemical

Also within the WSV, discussions about the research object of victimology

 There was a difference and discussion between 2 camps within the WSV
o Camp 1: Scientific victimologist: We need to focus on the victims of crime, and not other types of
victims such as victims of natural disasters (tsunami, hurricane, …)
o Camp 2: Humanistic aid providers: Victimology had to focus on all types of victims

Division among victimologists: restrict to victims of crimes or include other victims?

 Refer to the definition of victimology by the World Society of Victimology (WSV)
o Where WSV started with looking at victims of crime, but gradually over time started including other
types of victims aswell
 Prominent debate in the 1970s-1980s, but largely disappeared by the late 1990s-2000s (see UN Declaration)
o UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985)
 Unanimously adopted in the General Assembly
 Objective: set minimum standards for states to meet in providing assistance to victims (We
need something to help victims, states need to have victim funds, …)
o It was a compromise, to also include victims of abuse of power
 Developed countries (western states, perspective on victimology): wanted the UN declaration
to focus solely on victims of crime
 Developing countries (global south): They wanted to include victims of abuse of power,
because they should have the same rights as the first category
 The Global South has suffered from colonization, and so there was a debate in the
General Assembly: “if you want to have minimum standards for victims of crime, we
want the have minimum standards as well” (they wanted compensation & the
Western world to take responsibility for what they have done)
o Example:
 11. Where public officials or other agents acting in an official or quasi-
official capacity have violated national criminal laws, the victims
should receive restitution from the State whose officials or agents
were responsible for the harm inflicted
 = you have to pay something to a state official who committed
a crime
 19. States should consider incorporating into national law norms
proscribing abuses of power and providing remedies to victims of
such abuses
 = you should think about it
 At the end they included both, BUT much more provision for the first category than for the
second
 (1) Victims of crime  Had much more provisions (regels in de UN verklaring)
 (2) Victims of abuse of power

,Evolutions

1. From “penal victimology” to general victimology

 Penal victimology
o As said before, victimology first focused only on victims of crime, and was therefore called penal
victimology, but was also called “interactionist victimology” (because they focused on the interaction
between the perpetrator & the victim)
o There was also a limitation on what they “called” a “victim”, where they need to have suffered a loss
due to a crime (significant decrease in well-being), and this loss needs to identifiable, …
o Victims of crimes takes center stage
o Delimitation of victim
o Bayley 1991: penal victimology
1. They have suffered a loss some significant decrease in well-being unfairly or undeservedly and in such a manner
that they are helpless to prevent the loss and
2. The loss has an identifiable cause and
3. The legal or moral context of the loss entitles the sufferer of the loss to social concern
 It is called interactionist victimology

General Victimology

 However the scope of victimology changed – to general victimology, where they started to include everything.
There were no more restrictions, everything that is related to harm & victims is the topic of victimology (victims
of crime, victims of natural disasters, victims of discrimination, victims of police violence, war victims, ….), but
was Also referred to as “assistance-oriented victimology”. (The humanistic approach to help people in general)
 No restrictions, no exclusion of harm such as consumer fraud, pollution, work-related hazards and illnesses,
police violence, discrimination, poverty, and war
o Poverty: general victimology is also used for victims of structural discrimination in society
 Victims are victims  it doesn’t matter if the victim is a war victim or a violence victim
 Also referred to as assistance-oriented victimology

Human Victimology

 They agree with general victimology but exclude accidents, natural disasters, and "acts of God"
o It should not be directly connected to crimes
o But general victimology includes everything <-> human victimology does not
 They exclude somethings

In favour of broadening (pro’s)

 If victimology works on prevention and alleviation of suffering, then there should be no restrictions on the type
of suffering (poverty, HIV, ...)
 Artificial boundaries lead to priorities: one is worse than the other
 Follow the broadening of the research focus within criminology

Against broadening (contra’s)

 Loss of objectivity
o Abuse of power  ideological/normative
o We shouldn’t broad too much, because we will lose objectivity
o Where do we draw the line?
 Too broad research domain
 Too political
o See research on victims who abuse law and order politicians  abuse of power
 Human victimology: What is the qualitative distinction?
o What about work-related incidents  people did or admit something that caused harm
 Anyone can feel like a victim

,2. From micro to macro victimology

 In the beginning we started to look at individual cases (micro)
 Victim surveys become very popular in the 1970s  understand how people felt in society (macro)
o Shift from individual studies on victims of specific crimes to research on the volume of victimization
and the socio-demographic characteristics of victims
o General aspects

3. From theoretical to applied victimology

 Early victimology studies were mostly theoretical … such as the victim precipitation studies, which looked for
causal factors of victimization and explanations for victimhood (who do some people become victims, and
others don’t)
o However in the 1970s there was critique on the victim precipitation  Which led to a new focus within
victimology
 Helping and supporting victims: How can we support victims  Instead of studying the victim,
we need to understand the need of the victim
 What services do they need?
 How can we give victims a voice in the justice system?
 What professionals do we need to involve in victimology: (psychiatric doctor & social
worker also have a huge role now in victimology
 It gave a rise of a political movement, evident in the nature of the research: from purely
academic to a humanistic movement (political activism)
 Rise of victims' rights movements (especially feminist activism in the 1970s)
 Research became more action-oriented, helping shape public policy

Concepts and definitions

Victim:

 “Victims mean 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, including those proscribing abuse of power” (UN Declaration)
o Act or omissions  act = you did something <-> omission = you didn’t do something
o Easy explanation: Victims are people (alone or in a group) who have been harmed — physically,
emotionally, mentally, or financially — because someone broke the law (and they were the victim of
it) or abused their power.
 Critiques
o Victim = passive person  no sense of active agency
o Culture of complaint
 Ex: economic deprivation
o Personal responsibility?
 You are responsible for your own safety
 “By the social construction of law itself, all crimes have a victim” (Quinney)
o BUT do crimes without victims exist?  yes!
 Ex: driving through a red light
o Who is the victim is interesting to look at policies

,Who is“the victim”?
 = Result of our own morals, culture, perception, personal judgment
o Morals: What we think is right or wrong
o Culture: Different countries see things differently
o Perception & judgment: Personal beliefs influence whether we feel someone is a “true” victim
o  This is not a constant thing through history  It’s a process
 Discussion: prostitution = rape?
o Some people argue: Sex work can never be truly consensual, especially when done out of poverty or
because they are forced
 → the person is seen as a victim of rape (Ex: Sweden, France, Scandinavian countries, …)
o Others argue: If an adult chooses sex work freely (consent), they are not a victim
 → it's a form of work, not violence
o Consent versus Sweden, France, UK, EU?
Victimization
 = The event or process by which someone becomes a victim or harm is inflicted upon a victim
 Easy explanation: This means the actual event or process where harm is done to a person
 step 1: recognize that you are a victim – step 2: claim that you are a victim – step 3: recognition by the
government that you are a victim
Victimalization
 = The process in which society confers the status of a victim on the injured party
 Easy explanation: This refers to the social process in which the harmed person is officially or publicly recognized
as a victim by society, the media, or the justice system. It's about being granted victim status
 Get the name of victim
Devictimalization
 = This is the removal of victim status, even if harm occurred. It happens when society, courts, or others say:
“You’re not a victim anymore”
 Easy explanation: You are no longer a victim (see the debate on prostitution)
 See the debate on prostitution
 Originally not considered to be victim, throughout the time they became victims
 Lose the name of victim
Secondary victimization
 Safety and information are important
 = The notion that through inadequate or insufficient treatment of victims within the criminal justice system,
victims re-experience their victimization a second time
 Easy explanation: Secondary victimization happens when a victim is hurt again — not by the criminal, but by
the way others (especially the police, courts, or medical staff) treat them after the crime.
 Example: Think of insensitive remarks during filing a police report. (“it was your own fault, you didn’t see that
coming?? come on!!”)
 If you are not recognized as a victim – or doubt your story (they don’t believe you)
 Have you been drinking? Why did you wear that skirt?
 Think of insensitive remarks during filing a police report
o Not the re-experience as such
o It could bring back memories and bring them in a state of mind the is scary
Repeated victimization
 Research suggests that prior victimization is a strong predictor of future victimization
o For example, individuals who have been victims of theft are 9 times more likely to experience new
victimization than those who have never been victims
o There are some reasons that people become a victim multiple time
 People who have been victims of sexual violence are 35 times more likely to experience new victimization than
those who have never been victims

,2. Perspectives and typologies

Introduction: Science and Humanism

Origin and evolution of victimology

 Academic discipline <-> Activism/Advocacy Groups
 Criminal, general, and human victimology
 Key issue?

“Victimology is […] a non-academic program under which a hodgepodge of ideas, interests, ideologies and research
methods have been rather arbitrarily grouped […] and is characterized by a clash between two equally desirable
orientations to human suffering: the humanistic and the scientific.” (Cressey, 1992)

 Who is the victim and who are we going to study?
 Cressey (1992) says that victimology isn’t a clear or fully developed academic field. Instead, it’s a mix of many
different ideas, interests, and methods that have been grouped together without a clear structure.
o As said before, after the criticism in the ‘70s, there was a discussion between 2 camps
 (1) Humanistic approach = They saw victimology as activism, a possibility for social action for
all kinds of victims (they wanted to help victims & change society)
 Problem: is more propagandistic (it lacks objectivity, and can be seen as too political)
 (2) Scientific approach = They saw victimology as an academic discipline (research and
theories), focused on victims of crime
 Problem: Academic approach is NOT sufficiently focused on social action (helping
victims or pushing for change in society)

Discussion on the concept of the victim has implications for (who counts as a victim?)

 A) Scope of the scientific discipline
o = The way we define “victim” shapes what victimology studies. (only victims of crime or are we
studying victims in a broader sense)
 B) (Political) discussions on the scope of interventions, legitimacy of victimhood
o = debates about “who is a victim?” affect laws, services, funding, and public opinion
o The UN Declaration (1985) defines victims broadly — not just crime victims, but also victims of abuse
of power
 C) Scientific character of victimology?
o Popper: Progress in research through the identification of a problem
 Popper’s idea about science:
 According to philosopher Karl Popper, science moves forward when:
o (1) We identify a clear problem;
o (2) We test if existing theories or your theory can explain it;
 We try to find anything that disproves those theories (falsification)
o (3) If the theories can’t explain a problem, we adjust or replace them
 That’s how scientific progress happens
o Then examine whether the available theories are suitable for explaining all aspects of the problem
o Thus, progress in research

Distinction between science and humanism (Fattah, 1992)

 Humanism is more propagandistic <-> academic not sufficiently focused on social action

, The Positivist Perspective

The positivist perspective in victimology sees victimization as something that can be studied scientifically

 Their idea: “We can measure reality by looking at patterns & try to find an explanation for why they become a
victim. They want to come up with theories, based on data/measuring reality & looking for patterns”.
o This theory is used to predict when someone would become a victim, or at least help explain it
 Method: By looking at patterns & measuring the reality
o But: They need to have a clear idea of WHAT they are measuring, “what a victim is”
  That’s the reason why the positivistic research approach is very connected to the crime
definition of victims

Miers (1989):

"The identification of factors contributing to a non-random pattern of the victimization process, a focus on
interpersonal violent crimes, and a research interest in identifying victims who may have contributed to their own
victimization" (Miers, 1989: 3).

 Identification of risk patterns:
o The positivist approach looks for patterns in victimization — it assumes that becoming a victim is not
random. Instead, some people are more at risk because of certain factors like lifestyle, behavior, or
personal characteristics
 Focused on interpersonal crime (robbery, murder, assault, …)
 Often looks at victim precipitation: (!) cases where the victim may have contributed to the crime
 This view corresponds to:
o Concept of 'conservative' victimology (Karmen, 1990)
o Concept of 'conventional' victimology (Walklate, 1989)
o Concept of 'administrative' victimology (Davies et al., 2003)
 Common denominator: Focus on 'ordinary crime'

Positivism: Two Core / main assumptions

1. Behavior patterns can be objectively identified
o This means that when certain events happen, like a fight, we can observe and describe typical
behaviors — (for example, people often raise their voices during a fight). These repeated behaviors
form patterns that can be studied scientifically.
 No necessary connections in nature. Only patterns, sequences of phenomena
o Conclusion: Positivism focuses on facts, measurable data, and objective observations
o Significant influence within victimology
 Victim surveys
 Lifestyle theory (People in that neighborhood might be victims of theft because we see a
pattern)
2. Heavy emphasis on objectivity in knowledge production
o We need to clearly describe the situation and conditions in which we see these patterns, and need to
know what we are measuring & how