VICTIM TYPOLOGIES

INTRODUCTION

The criminal-victim relationship is called "victimology" and it is considered as an integral

part of criminology. Recently scholarly attention and involvement have developed about
the victim as a constituent of the criminal situation. For scholars of criminology and law,
victim is not just a passive object but an active component of his or her own
victimization. The newly developed interest in the victim-victimizer relationship shows
that the understanding of crime is reaching a new phase. It also indicates the decline of
the sole responsibility of the victimizer. This phenomenon of the crime problem reflects
the growing recognition that criminal justice should consider the dynamics of crime and
treat the victims and the victimizers in the same light.

THE CONCEPT OF VICTIMOLOGY

The concept of a “victim” can be traced back to ancient societies. It was connected to
the notion of sacrifice. In the original meaning of the term, a victim was a person or an
animal put to death during a religious ceremony in order to appease some supernatural 
power or deity. Over the centuries, the word has picked up additional meanings. Now it
commonly refers to individuals who suffer injuries, losses, or hardships for any reason. !
eople
can become victims of accidents, natural disasters, diseases, or social problems such as 
warfare
discrimination, political witch hunts, and other injustices. crime victims are harmed by
illegal acts.
  Victim:

The word victim is derived from the latin word victim & referring to an animal or living
sacrifice which as a concept of sacrifice offered to a temple or deity and first indicated in
Bible as a concept of suffering of weak at the hands of aggressor. The concept revolved
around the incidents of Abel and cain which was first recorded history of a murderer.
The first recorded use of the word referring to a person was circa in 1690 and indicated
someone who was tortured, hurt or killed by another. Currently ‘victim’ means any
living entity that experiences injury, loss or hardship due to any act as follows:

 By criminal act
 By religious sacrifice
 By oppression , tyranny or war
 By voluntary undertaking
 By tricking or fraud
 By any supernatural calamity

According to correctional and conditional release Act 1992 , Victim means

a. A person to whom harm was done or suffers physical or emotional damage as a

result of commission of an offence.
b. Where the person is dead ill or otherwise incapacitated any person solely or
partly depending upon him or her.

Victimization:

Victimization is an asymmetrical interpersonal relationship that is abusive, painful,

destructive, parasitical, and unfair. 2hile a crime is in progress, offenders temporarily
force their victims to play roles that mimic the dynamics between predator and prey,
winner and loser, victor and vanquished and even master and slave.

In other words victimization is the process of being victimi3ed or becoming a victim

weather its direct or indirect.

Victimology

The term Victimology was first used by Benjamin Mendelsohn in 1937 in his
writings. Victimology is the study of victimization, including the relationships
between victims and offenders, the interactions between victims and the criminal
justice system that is ,the police and courts, and corrections officials and the
connections between victims and other social groups and institutions, such as the
media, businesses, and social movements.Victimology is however not restricted to
the study of victims of crime alone butmay include other forms of human rights
violations. Victimology is the scientific study of the physical, emotional, and financial
harm people suffer because of illegal activities.Victimologists first and foremost
investigate the victim’s plight : the impact of the injuries and losses inflicted by
offenders on the people they target. I n addition, victimologists carry out research
into the public’s political, social, and economic reactions to the plight of victims.
Victimologists also study how victims are handled by officials and agencies within
the criminal justice system, especially interactions with police officers, detectives,
prosecutors , defense attorneys, judges, probation officers, and members of parole
boards. Victimology is the study of victims in their own social context.

Victimogenesis

“Victimogenesis” refers to the origin or cause of a victimization , the constellation

of variables which caused a victimization to occur.
 Offender: The word offender was first introduced in 1275-1325 from Latin
offendere which means to strike against, displease against. Offender means a person
who :

1. Causes to irritate, annoy, or anger? cause resentful displeasure in any act.

2. Affects the sense, taste, etc disagreeably.
3. Violates or transgress a criminal, religious, or moral law.
4. Causes hurt or cause pain to others.

When there is the study of Victimology involved offender is a frequent word to be

acquainted with. In a sense offender is the person responsible for causing hardship
maybe of any kind on the victim.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

It was not until 1660 that the word victim was first used to in the sense of a person who
is hurt, tortured or killed by another. A victim of crime did not exist until well into the
17th century. Why were victims ignored for so long? A victim is an integral part of the
system, in fact, some say without a victim there would be no need for the CJ system.
Victims are the people or communities that suffer physical, emotional, or financial harm
as a result of a crime. Over the years different typologies of victims have been created to
demonstrate the unique role or position of victims in relation to crime. Typically, when
people hear someone has been a victim of a crime we often think of them as completely
innocent. In fact, a lot of new legislation and policy changes created to provide the
victim with a greater role in the CJ offers the stereotypical view of the victim as
completely innocent.
TYPOLOGIES

Ever since criminologists, psychologists and other scientists have become interested in
the study of criminal behavior, there has been a demand to figure out why certain
people become victims.  Many people have studied different victims trying to learn who
is more susceptible to victimization.  Out of the many people that could be discussed,
focus is going to be given to Sellin and Wolfgang.  In 1964, they came up with five
victim typologies that classifies who gets victimized versus why they become victims. 
These five victim typologies will be named and defined as well as exploration into the
difference between criminology and victimology.

 Sellin and Wolfgang identified their five typologies as:

1. Primary victimization
2. Secondary victimization
3. Tertiary victimization
4. Mutual victimization
5. No victimization

PRIMARY VICTIMIZATION

 Primary victimization is personal victimization (Meadows, 2007).  What this means is

that an actual person or group of people become first hand victims of a crime.  This can
be done because of a personal vendetta against a single person or a specific group of

people, such as someone getting revenge for a significant other cheating with a person .
EXAMPLE

Let’s say a family member, partner, or even an ex- partner uses forcible or threating
abuse that ends up causing either emotional or physical damage. This type of crime
results in primary victimization. In most cases like this, it will cause both emotional and
physical damage. Even being verbally put down or humiliated is a form of domestic
abuse. Stalking would be another good example. Watching and following the victim,
sending threating letters or e-mails, or making threating telephone calls would be
another form of primary victimization. 

SECONDARY VICTIMIZATION

It is also known as post crime victimization or double victimization. It is a form of

victimization, which is not direct result of crime but through the victim’s reaction to the
offence by change in self-perception or through the neglecting kind of response by the
institutions and individuals. Secondary victimization through the process of criminal
justice system may occur because of difficulties in balancing the rights of the victim
against the right of the accused

EXAMPLE

An example of this could be murder.  When a family member has met their death due to
a heinous act the victim is not around, but the living relatives have become victims
because of the crime.  Another example of this could be a person donating money for a
nonprofit organization just for one of the employees of the organization to embezzle
the money.  The person was not a direct victim of this crime but since it was their
donated money that was embezzled they are now secondary victims.
TERTIARY VICTIMIZATION

Tertiary victimization is society as a whole becoming victims (Meadows, 2007).  As

Meadows (2007) points out, crimes committed by the government would be in this
category. 

EXAMPLE

An example of this is an elected official buying votes.  The author recalls a case of this
that happened during the primary elections of 2006 in her former place of residence in
Owingsville, Kentucky.  Donald “Champ” Maze, a county attorney was caught in a
scheme of vote buying along with two other government officials Judge Executive
Walter Shrout and his electoral opponent Michael Swartz.  He was charged with vote
buying, evidence tampering, and lying to a federal grand jury.  He and his wife, circuit
clerk Beth Maze reported the vote buying in an attempt to clear Champ of any charges
once the amount of absentee votes came into question.  He was later caught and served
time in prison, but the damage had been done and the community felt victimized.  The
citizens not involved in the vote buying felt cheated because they had taken time out of
their busy schedules to place a vote when the election was “rigged” and their vote really
didn’t matter in the long run.  The community felt further victimized when it was ruled
that his wife Judge Maze didn’t know of the vote buying and was able to keep her
position as circuit judge.

MUTUAL VICTIMIZATION

 Mutual victimization is when a criminal is retaliated against and becomes a victim him
or herself (Meadows, 2007). 
EXAMPLE

This would be when an offender commits armed robbery, causing psychological

damage to the clerk.  The father of the clerk becomes overwhelmingly upset and
decides to “get even” with the robber.  He attempts murdering the robber but instead
badly wounds him.  The robber has then been a victim of mutual victimization.

NO VICTIMIZATION

No victimization is victimization that is hard to define (Meadows, 2007).  Meadows

(2007) states the “victimless” crimes fall into this category.

A victimless crime is an act that is illegal but has no direct victim. Typically, the parties
involved are voluntarily acting. Also, the parties may be consenting adults. Therefore,
there is no harm directly and specifically imposed upon another person and as a result,
there is no victim.

EXAMPLE

An example is crimes where people grow marijuana in their own homes for personal
use.  No one was actually harmed but a crime has been committed. 

Another example would be a john picking up a prostitute, both participants are

consenting adults but prostitution is against the law.  That is what makes this a
victimless crime 

Through the exploration of Sellin & Wolfgang’s victim typologies and learning the
difference between criminology and victimology a person can see the demand for more
studies within the field’s concerning criminal behavior.  The demands to figure out why
certain people become victims still exists, but with each study done on the subject the
 closer society is to receiving an answer.  Who knows what science will find to be fact
tomorrow!

VICTIM TYPOLOGIES BY OTHER POINEERS

 Mendelsohn’s Typology of Crime Victims

Theorists have developed victim typologies that are concerned primarily with the
situational and personal characteristics of victims and the relationship between victims
and offenders. Benjamin Mendelsohn was one of the first criminologists to create a
victim typology, in the 1950s, but was not without controversy.

Benjamin Mendelsohn was a French-Israeli lawyer who began studying victims in 1947
(Karmen 2005 ). While working on the defense of a rape case, he became interested in
the correlations between rapists and their victims. He found that there was often a
strong interpersonal relationship between the two, and that it could lead some victims
to unknowingly invite or even cause their own victimization ( Meadows 2007 ). He
referred to this as victim precipitation: 2 crime caused or partially facilitated by the
victim. He ultimately believed that many victims shared an unconscious capacity for
being victimized, and referred to this as being victim prone. Similar to Von Hentig,
Mendelsohn developed a typology that categorizes the extent to which a victim is
culpable in his or her demise. However, while Von Hentig’s typology explains victim
contribution based on personal characteristics, Mendelsohn’s typology uses situational
factors. Mendelsohn’s six victim types, as adapted from Meadows (2007 , 22) are:

1. INNOCENT VICTIM
Someone who did not contribute to the victimization and is in the wrong place
at the wrong time . This is the victim we most often envision when thinking about
enhancing victim rights.
2. THE VICTIM WITH MINOR GUILT
Does not actively participate in their victimization but contributes to it in some
minor degree , such as frequenting high-crime areas . This would be a person
that continues to go to a bar that is known for nightly assault .

3. THE GUILTY VICTIM , GUILTY OFFENDER

Victim , an offender may have engaged in criminal activity together , This would
be two people attempting to steal a car , rob a store , sell drugs etc.

4. THE GUILTY OFFENDER , GUILTY VICTIM

The victim may have been the primary attacker , but the offender won the fight .

5. GUILTY VICTIM
The victim instigated a conflict but is killed in self-defense . An example would be
an abused woman killing her partner while he is abusing her.

6. IMAGINARY VICTIM
Some people pretend to be victims and are not . This would be someone
falsifying reports.
Mendelsohn’s classification is useful primarily for identifying the relative
culpability of the victim in the criminal act.
Other criminologists developed similar typologies but included other elements. For
example, Hans Von Hentig expanded his typology from situational factors that
Mendelsohn looked at and considered the role of biological, sociological and
psychological factors. For example, Von Henting said the young, elderly, and women are
more susceptible to victimization because of things such as physical vulnerabilities. It is
important to recognize that some crimes, and ultimately crime victims, are excluded in
these typologies such as white-collar and corporate crime. 

 Von Hentig’s Typology

In the first half of the last century, Hans von Hentig was a criminologist from Germany
seeking to develop better crime prevention strategies. Having researched the factors
that predisposed one to criminality, he began to wonder what might cause a victim to
become a victim. He ultimately found that certain victim’s characteristics did play a role
in shaping the crimes suffered (Doerner and Lab 2005; Meadows 2007 ).

Von Hentig originally classified victims into one of 13 categories, which could easily be
described as a list of characteristics that increase victim vulnerability or exposure to
danger.

1. The Young:

Von Hentig was referring to children and infants. From a contemporary point of
view, children are physically weaker, have less mental prowess, have fewer legal
rights, and are economically dependent on their caretakers (parents, guardians,
teachers, and so forth); they also have the potential to be exposed to a wider range
of harm than adults. Moreover, they are less able to defend themselves and
sometimes less likely to be believed should they seek assistance. This includes
children who suffer emotional, physical, and sexual abuse at home because of
 abusive parents, children who are bullied at school because of some aspect of their
appearance or personality; and children who are forced into acts of prostitution or
sold into slavery by impoverished parents. Each suffers different levels and
frequencies of exposure to different kind of harms.

2. The Female:

Von Hentig was referring to all women. From a contemporary point of view, many
women are physically weaker than men. Many have been culturally conditioned, to
varying degrees, to accept male authority. And many women are financially
dependent on the men in their lives (fathers, husbands, and so forth). To make
matters worse, many Western women are conditioned to believe that their value is
associated with their bodies, or specifically, their sexuality. In extreme cases, this
can lead to low self-esteem, depression, substance abuse, promiscuity, and
prostitution, with varying exposure to harm.

3. The Old:

Von Hentig was referring to the elderly. In a contemporary sense, they have many
of the same vulnerabilities as children: they are often physically weaker, mentally
less facile, and may be under someone else’s care. This can expose them to a range
of harms, from the theft of personal property to physical abuse. However, they are
also particularly vulnerable to confidence scams, as they can have greater access to
money, along with poor memory and a sense of pride that may combine to
prevent them from reporting loss.

4. The Mentally Defective and Deranged:

Von Hentig was referring to the feeble-minded, the “insane,” drug addicts, and
alcoholics. Those who suffer from any of these conditions have an altered
perception of reality. As a consequence, depending on the level of their affliction,
personality, and environment, these potential victims may harm themselves and
 others to varying degrees. They may also suffer many of the same general kinds of
exposures as children and the elderly.

5. Immigrants:

Von Hentig was referring to foreigners unfamiliar with a given culture. Anyone
traveling to a culture different from their own is subject to varying gaps in
communication and comprehension. This can, depending on where they go and
whom they encounter, expose them to all manner of confidence schemes, theft,
and abuse, to say nothing of prejudices.

6. Minorities:

Von Hentig was referring to the “racially disadvantaged,” as he put it. What this
truly means is prejudice. Groups against which there is some amount of bias or
prejudice by another may be exposed to varying levels of abuse and violence.

7. Dull Normals:

Von Hentig was referring to “simple-minded persons,” as he put it. From a

contemporary viewpoint, we might consider these as having the same types of
exposure to harm as those who are mentally defective and deranged.

8. The Depressed:

Von Hentig was referring to those with various psychological maladies. From a
contemporary viewpoint, those who are depressed may expose themselves to all
manner of danger, intentional and otherwise. Additionally, they may take
psychotropic medication that alters perception, affects judgment, and impairs
reasoning.
9. The Acquisitive:

Von Hentig was referring to those who are greedy and looking for quick gain. Such
individuals may suspend their judgment, or intentionally put themselves in
dangerous situations, in order to achieve their goals.

10. The Wanton:

Von Hentig was referring to promiscuous persons. People who engage in

indiscriminate sexual activity with many different partners expose themselves to
different levels of disease and varying personalities. Some of these personalities may
be healthy and supportive; some may be narcissistic, jealous, and destructive.

11. The Lonesome or Heartbroken:

Von Hentig was referring to widows, widowers, and those in mourning. From a
contemporary standpoint, loneliness is at epidemic proportions, with more than half of
marriages ending in divorce, the rise of the culture of narcissism since the late 1970s
(see Lasch 1979 ), and diminishing intimacy skills across all cultures. This category does
not apply only to those in mourning; those who are lonely or heartbroken are prone to
substance abuse, and can be easy prey for con men, the abusive, and the manipulative.

12.The Tormentor:

Von Hentig was referring to the abusive parent. In contemporary terms, there are
abusive caretakers, intimates, and family members of all kinds. All such abusers expose
themselves to the harm they inflict, the resulting angst, and the degree to which their
victims fight back. For example, an abusive mother who gets drunk and punches a
child exposes herself to the dangers of injuring her hand, of misjudging her strike and
even her balance, and of the child punching back.
13. The Blocked, Exempted, or Fighting:

Von Hentig was referring to victims of blackmail, extortion, and confidence scams. In
contemporary times, such victims are still exposed to continual financial loss or
physical harm, or must suffer the consequences that come from bringing the police in
to assist. In such cases, the attention of law enforcement, and any subsequent
publicity, may be the very thing that the victim wishes to avoid.

Von Hentig’s work was the basis for later theories of victim precipitation. Victim
precipitation suggests many victims play a role in their victimization. First, the victim
acted first during the course of the offense, and second that the victim instigated the
commission of the offense. It is important to note that criminologists were attempting
to demonstrate that victims may have some role in the victimization and are not truly
innocent. Today we often recognize the role in victimization without blaming the
individual because ultimately the person who offended is the person who offended.
CONCLUSION

Born in the ashes of the Second World War, the field of victimology has grown
tremendously in recent years, where we have seen much excellent empirical research
done on victims. Much of the research deals with specific types of victimization (e.g.,
domestic violence, rape), empirical aspects of victimization in general (e.g., victimization
surveys) and the consequences of victimization (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD)). However, despite the many empirical studies, relatively little attention has been
paid to theoretical aspects of victimology. The dearth of theoretical work in victimology
is surprising given that in a relatively new field problems of definition and boundary-
setting would be an important starting point for further studies therein. Victimologists
have not always shied away from theoretical work. Early victimologists, such as Hans von
Hentig, Benjamin Mendelsohn, Marvin Wolfgang and Sellin, were very active in
developing theoretical victimology. Each developed their own typology of victims in
order to better understand, explain and hence prevent victimization. By the early 1980s,
under the influence of the victims’ movement, these typologies lost much of their
original popularity, as victimology moved away from criminology and stopped trying to
explain crime. As mendehlson observes, there was a shift ‘from victimology of the act to
victimology of action’ as victimology became increasingly associated with victim
support.
REFERENCES

1. Hagemann, O., Schäfer, P., & Schmidt, S. (Eds.) (2010). Victimology, Victim

Assistance, and Criminal Justice: Perspectives Shared by International

Experts Wemmers, J. A short history of victimology. at the Inter-University Centre
of Dubrovnik. 2010. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2482627 ↵

2. Fuller, J.R. (2019). Introduction to Criminal Justice:  New York: Oxford University

Press.

3. Mendelsohn, B. (1976). Victimology and contemporary society's

trends. Victimology, 1(1), 8-28. 

4. Burgess, A. W. (2013). Victimology: Theories and applications. (3rd ed.). Burlington:

Jones and Bartlett. 

5. Von Hentig, H. (1948). The criminal and his victim: Studies in the sociobiology of
crime. New Haven: Yale University Press. 

6. Smith, M., & Bouffard, L. A. (2014). "Victim precipitation." The Encyclopedia of

Criminology and Criminal Justice, Wiley Online Library.