Victimology: Criminology and Victim Essay

This essay is going to discuss the causes of crime and evaluate the theories of criminalisation using one theory for each of the following themes. The themes are labelling and deviant identity of criminalisation, theory of delinquency and criminalisation, theory of political economy and criminalisation, and finally radical theory of criminalisation. This essay will also show some of the weaknesses of each of the theories used for these themes.

The first victimization theory is victim precipitation. According to Dr. Marvin Wolfgang, some people may initiate confrontation, provoking the offender, which could eventually lead to his or her death or injury. (Siegel 78) During his research, he concludes that victims are not entirely innocent or blameless. Consequently, the victim sets into motion their own victimization using confrontation. These precipitations are performed in one of two ways, active or passive. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

This essay will discuss the ways in which gender influences patterns and processes of victimisation, identifying key victimological perspectives and typologies. It will consider key authors in the discipline and offer definitions of terms used. The essay will identify three issues which may impact on gendered victimisation before acknowledging the argument that radical victimology offers a more balanced approach to gendered victimisation than positivist or critical viewpoints.

The introduction of Nils Christie’s ‘Ideal victim’ theory (1986: 18) refers to victims of crime who can attain the status of a legitimate victim in the eyes of the public. Christie outlines a criteria which needs to be followed in order to gain this full status of a ‘legitimate victim’. Christie’s ‘ideal victim’ however is not the same as a legal victim and often real victims of crime deviate far from the concept of the ideal victim (Beck & Janbakhsh 2010). This therefore means that using Christie’s ideal victim theory to give someone the title of a legitimate victim is often detrimental. Male victims of sexual assault often deviate from the ‘ideal victim’ criteria set out by Christie, this means that when they encounter the justice system, their experiences are often marginalised or discounted entirely.

In the article, Abuser & Victim…Alike, the author argues that both the abuser and the victim share responsibility for their situations. This is only true if we choose to believe that such people voluntarily stay and allow the abuse to continue. In this sense, some truth might exist, however, we must remember the lack of control felt by each victim, as well as the emotional torment they experience that serves to trap them in their current situations. Alternatively, it would be difficult for the author to validate such a claim of shared responsibility if the abused were a child, disabled or mentally handicapped person. To a certain degree, the author himself contradicts his previous statement when he comments that “abusers have all the power”.

In life, the line that separates victims from perpetrators is as clear as a window pane, but in some situations that window can crack, causing damage and danger. A victim is someone who has been harmed, or worse, due to a crime or accident. A perpetrator is a person who has committed a crime, either accidently or purposely. Three stories that capture this blurred line are Shattered, an Australian Story episode on ABC’s website, The Story of Tom Brennan, a story written by Australian author J.C.Burke, and In My Little Town, another Australian Story episode. They all share the common theme of having a blurred line between victim and perpetrator.

The term is often related with negative meanings of powerlessness, passivity, and some victims could be even perceived as inferiors. It is also important to note that when the word ‘victim’ is gendered, it is biased towards the female sex. Therefore, assumptions that females are passive and weak also coincide with the assumptions of victims. The alternative term ‘survivor’ is sometimes preferred, particularly by feminists, as it places emphasis on their strength and the severity of the experience with crime. In addition, groups may also be victims; usually involving a type of hate crime such as racism or homophobia.

Outline and explain the three key goals victims can pursue through the criminal justice system.

The traditional criminal justice system is criticized for its neglect of victim importance and needs, for example (Symonds, 1980) acknowledges, that the criminal justice system is concerned about looking back at the event rather than focusing on how to rehabilitate and as a consequence making victims be in a ‘secondary victimization’ effect. This is the attitudes, behaviors and the beliefs of the people in the criminal

Victims of crime, particularly those violent in nature, have their rights violated and experience exceedingly high level of trauma and stress (Appendix B, 2015). It is surprising then, that Criminal Justice Systems (CJS) around the world forgo many victims’ rights and provided limited space for them to interact with the system (Sarre, 1999). Rather systems are built around balancing the rights of offenders against the greater safety and need of the community whilst neglecting individual justice needs of the victims (Sarre, 1999). With limited rights and minimal involvement a victim often becomes a disposable utensil to the CJS (Clark, 2010). They are used by the courts to determine the ultimate truth so justice may be served, with no care for the damage that may be caused in the process and then disposed of the case is concluded (Braun, 2014). In 2011-2012 a victimisation survey revealed that 1.2 million Australians were victims of personal crimes, such as assault, robbery and sexual assault (Australian Institution of Criminology, 2013). Of these victims, only half of the crimes were reported to the police (Australian Institution of Criminology, 2013). Such low reporting rates have been contributed in part to this notion of imbalance offender VS victims’ rights (Braun, 2014). Due to the sensitive nature of sexual crimes, the limited available evidence and victim rights, these crimes tend to carry the lowest reporting rates (Braun, 2014). During the latest Australian

Like all theories in criminology, victim precipitation ties in to how and why crime happens. While a majority of theories seem to concentrate mainly on the mannerisms and objectives of the offender, victim precipitation works toward understanding the interaction and/or relationship between the victim and the offender. According to this theory, the victim is looked at as a participant in the crime. This happens in one of two ways: first, the victim is the contributor in the crime who makes the first move; and second, the victim encourages or aggravates the offender into committing the crime. These are the main workings of the theory.

The term violence brings to memory an image of physical or emotional assault on a person. In most circumstances, the person affected due to violence is aware that a violent action has been performed on that person. There is another form of violence where the affected individual, in most cases are unaware of the violence inflicted upon them. These types of violence are termed as structural violence. Structural violence is a form of invisible violence setup by a well-defined system, to limit an individual’s development to his full potential, by using legal, political, social or cultural traditions (Winter and Leighton, 1).

In this paper I will be talking about a couple of different crimes against people. Also according to statistics where you are more lightly to be a victim of one of these crimes. These statistics also show if your nationality might have an impact on you becoming a victim. Crimes against people can come in different forms unfortunately and from different people. So you never know who might committee the crime or against whom unless they have a pattern in killing for instance serial killers usually have a pattern. Any direst harm or force against another person. For instance stalking is a crime against a person because it does not require a threat or physical force to be a crime. As you learn more about these crimes you will notice that for

There are two sides to every jail cell, meaning that the question “Does victimless crime exist?” has contrary answers depending on who’s answering. This paper’s assertion is in support of the present factor of victimhood for an act to be considered a crime. In Crime and Morality by Hans Boutellier, it is explained that “[Bedau (1974)] wonders whether there really is such a thing as victimless crime. ‘If there are crimes which are truly victimless, for what reason did they become criminal in the first place?’ (p.57) … The fact that there is agreement does not necessarily exclude the possibility of victimhood.” (2000, pg. 57)

The study of victimology includes several different theories. These theories are victim-based, interactional, societal-based, and ecological. However, before on can begin discussing these theories, the history of the development of victimology theories need to be broached. Although victimology may lack a singular theoretical foundation based within the field itself, it can be said that the field as a whole represents the application of several different theoretical insights that were developed from other disciplines. The first of these other disciplines is criminology. From his work, Vold (1958) was able to provide a framework for categorizing theories that relate to victimology. Within this paper the discussion will begin with the early spiritual explanations, followed by