Chapter XII

Criminal Victimization and Victimology

Introduction

Victimology focuses on the study of victims, which seeks to understand and know the
participation of victims on crime existence. On this, as a future police officer, attention on crime
investigation and solution should not only be focused on the offender but should also consider the
contributory role of the victims.

In this lesson, you shall know the definition of the concepts of victimology, its theories, history
and the types of victims. This may help you understand the roles of victims in crime and realize the
impact of victim-blaming culture.

Lesson

Victim defined

As defined under the United Nations declaration, victims means 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.

Early times called as the Golden Age of Victims, victims were not only well cared for but also
had considerable say in imposing punishments upon apprehended offenders. They took the law into
their own hands. If they were able to apprehend their victimizers, they enacted their own form of
revenge and impose some of personal retaliation. If the offender could not be found, however, the
offender’s family was duty bound to care for the needs of the victim.

During the middle ages, the concept of “King’s Peace” had emerged, wherein all offenses were
seen violations of imperial law. It became the duty of the government to apprehend, try, and punish
offenders, effectively removing the victim from any direct involvement in judicial decision making.
Victims as a class moved to periphery of the justice process. Justice for the victim was forgotten,
translated instead into the notion of justice for the state.

The frequent and diverse use of the term “victim” both in conversation and in print has changed
the way people think of victims today. The current connotations of the word extend well beyond the
historical meaning.

The American Heritage Dictionary listed definitions of victims which illustrates the breadth of the
accepted meaning of the term victim:

1. Someone who is put to death or subjected to torture or suffering by another.

2. A living creature slain and offered as sacrifice to a deity or as part of a religious sacrifice.

3. Anyone who is harmed by or made to suffer from condition: victims war, a act, circumstance,
circumstance agency or

4. A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: a victim of
his own scheming.

5. A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of a dupe.

Thus, a victim may be an innocent, led to slaughter, a dupe, or someone whose suffering is
caused by his or her own scheming or ineptitude. Some people who have been harmed by crime feel
that defining themselves as a "victim" has negative connotations and choose instead to define
themselves as a "survivor".

Victim-blaming is the attitude which suggests that the victim rather than the perpetrator bears
responsibility for the assault. Victim-blaming occurs when it is assumed that an individual did
something to provoke the violence by actions, words, or dress.

Victim blaming allows people to believe that such events could never happen to them. They
would rather believe that someone caused their own misfortune because it makes the world seem a
safer place, but victim-blaming is a major reason that survivors of sexual and domestic violence do not
report their assaults. Many survivors are already grappling with feelings of guilt and shame for what
has happened. It is essential that administrators do not reinforce these feelings. No matter what they
were wearing, how much they had to drink, or whether they had a previously consensual relationship
with the perpetrator, the victim should not be blamed. It is never the victim's fault.

Criminal Victimization

Victimization is the process of being victimized, either from a physical or a psychological or a

moral or a sexual point of view. Despite the crucial role of the victim, historically the victimization
process was studied above all from the offender's point of view, in order to focus on their motivation
and the causes of offending. Only during the 1960s criminologists began to understand the weaknesses
of administrative sources and sought alternative methods which might provide a more accurate and
informative description of crime problems.

The consequences of crime vary from one individual to another. Crime can involve financial loss,
property damage, physical injury, and death. Less obvious but sometimes more devastating are the
psychological wounds left in the wake of victimization, wounds that may never heal.

Crime victims could be key actors in the criminal justice process, but more often they are kept
at the periphery. Crime victims are the "forgotten person" of the criminal justice system while the criminal
is the superstar. Victims are only valued for their capacity to report crimes and to appear in court as
witnesses.

Theories of Victimization
People may actually initiate the confrontation that
eventually leads to their injury or death. By acting
in certain provocative ways, some individuals
initiate a chain of events that lead to their deaths.

Two types:

1. Active precipitation. This occurs when victims

act provocatively, use threats or fighting words, or
even attack first.
Victim precipitation theory
Hans Von Hentig Example: Ruru kicked Romeo because he was
repeatedly mentioning that former was a son of a
whore.

2. Passive precipitation. This occurs when the

victim exhibits some personal characteristic that
unknowingly either threatens or encourages the
attacker.

Example: She was robbed because she wore

jewelries while in crowd.

Lifestyle theory People may become crime victims because their

lifestyle increases their exposure to criminal
Michael R. Gottfredson, offenders.
 Michael Hindelang and A high risk lifestyle means getting involved with
deviant peer groups, just "hanging out", or
James Garofalo frequenting bars until late into the night and
drinking heavily.

Lifestyle theory presented that a person may

become potential suspect because of the
presence of potential target.

Example: Laylay Delima has a routine of going

home every 5 pm.

Junell, a rapist, used it as an opportunity to

consummate the crime of rape.

The greater their exposure to dangerous places,

the more likely people will become victims of
crime and violence.
Deviant place theory
Example: Bong loves going to places like clubs
where he meets different people.

The Role of the Victim in Crime

The first studies of crime victims were centered on the investigation of how these victims
contributes to their own victimization. The following are the concepts of this study:

1. Victim precipitation

It is the extent to which a victim is responsible for his or her own victimization. This concept
suggests that, although some victims are not at all responsible for their victimization, other victims are.
Crime victimization involves at least two people-an offender and a victim-and that both parties are acting
and often reacting before, during, and after the incident. However, this concept may be viewed as
negative when it is used to blame the victim while ignoring the offender's role.

Even though the first study examining victim precipitation and homicide was published in 1957,
this phenomenon is being examined in contemporary times as well. In recent research examining 895
homicides that occurred in Dallas, Texas, Lisa Muftić and Donald Hunt (2013) found that 48.9% (n=438)
were victim precipitated. They further found that homicides in which the victim had a previous history
of offending were more likely to be victim precipitated than homicides in which the victim had no such
history.

2. Victim facilitation

This occurs when a victim unintentionally makes it easier for an offender to commit a crime. A
victim may, in this way, be a catalyst for victimization. A woman who accidentally left her purse in plain
view in her office while she went to the restroom and then had it stolen would be a victim who facilitated
her own victimization. This woman is not blameworthy the offender should not steal, regardless of
whether the purse is in plain view. But the victim's actions certainly made her a likely target and made
it easy for the offender to steal her purse.

Unlike precipitation, facilitation helps understand why one person may be victimized over
another but does not connote blame and responsibility.

3. Victim provocation

It occurs when a person does something that incites another person to commit an illegal act.
Provocation suggests that without the victim's behavior, the crime would not have occurred.
Provocation, then, most certainly connotes blame. In fact, the offender is not at all responsible.
 An example of victim provocation would be if a person attempted to mug a man who was walking
home from work and the man, instead of willingly giving the offender his wallet, pulled out a gun and
shot the mugger. The offender in this scenario ultimately is a victim, but he would not have been shot if
not for attempting to mug the shooter.

Dynamics of Victimization

There are a number of procedural models which can be applied to the study of the victimization process
for the purpose of understanding the experience the victims.

1. “Victims of Crime Model” (by Bard and Sangrey)

According to this model, there are three stages involved in any victimization:

a. Stage of Impact & Disorganization. The stage during and immediately following the
criminal event
b. Stage of Recoil. The stage during which the victim formulates psychological defenses
and deals with conflicting emotions of guilt, anger, acceptance, and desire of revenge
(said to last three to eight months)
c. Reorganization Stage. The stage during which the victim puts his or her life back to
normal daily living. Some victims, however may not successfully adopt the
victimization experience and a maladaptive reorganization stage may last for many
years.

2. “Disaster Victim’s Model”

This model was developed to explain the coping behavior of victims of natural disaster.
According to this model, there are four stages of victimization:

a. Pre-impact. The stage describe the victim’s condition prior to being victimized
b. Impact. The stage at which victimization occurs
c. Post-impact. The stage which entails the degree and duration of personal and social
disorganization following victimization
d. Behavioral outcome. The stage that describes the victim’s adjustment to the
victimization experience.

Surveys on Victimization

1. Adolescents and victimization

The association between age and victimization is undoubtedly tied to lifestyle: adolescents often
stay out late at night, go to public places, and hang out with other kids who have a high risk of criminal
involvement. Teens also face a high victimization risk because they spend a great deal of time in the
most dangerous building in the community-the local school. As indicated, adolescents have the highest
crime rates. It is not surprising that people who associate with these high-crime-rate individuals (other
adolescents) have the greatest victimization risk.

2. Social status and victimization

The poorest Americans are also the most likely victims of violent and property crime. For
example, homeless people, who are among the poorest individuals in America, suffer very high rates
of assault. This association occurs across all gender, age, and racial groups. Although the poor are
more likely to suffer violent crimes, the wealthy are more likely targets of personal theft crimes such as
pocket picking and purse snatching. Perhaps the affluent sporting more expensive attire and driving
better cars-attract the attention of thieves.

3. Marital Status and victimization

Status also influences victimization risk. Never-married males and females are victimized more
often than married people. Widows and widowers have the lowest victimization risk. This association
between marital status and victimization is probably influenced by age, gen- der, and lifestyle.
4. Race and Ethnicity

a. African Americans are more likely than whites to be victims of violent crime, and
b. Serious violent crime rates have declined in recent years for both blacks and whites.

Victimology

Victimology is a term first coined by Benjamin Mendelsohn (Father of Victimology) in 1947 to

describe scientific study of crime victims. It is a subfield of criminology which examined characteristics
of victims and how they contributed to their victimization. The study that deals purely on the underlying
factors of victimization and the contributory role of the victims in the commission of crimes.

It is the scientific study of victimization, including the relationships between victims and
offenders, the interactions between victims and the criminal justice system and the connections
between victims and other societal groups and institutions, such as the media, businesses, and social
movements.

As defined by the World Society of Victimology, it is the scientific study of extent, nature and
causes of criminal victimization, its consequences for the persons involved and the reactions thereto
by society, in particular the police and the criminal justice system as well as voluntary workers and
professional helpers.

Victimology is a science; victimologists use the scientific method to answer questions about
victims. For example, instead of simply wondering or hypothesizing why younger people are more likely
to be victims than are older people, victimologists conduct research to attempt to identify the reasons
why younger people seem more vulnerable.

History of Victimology (1940s and 1950s)

As previously mentioned, the term victimology was coined in the mid-1900s. Crime was, of
course, occurring prior to this time; thus, people were being victimized long before the scientific study
of crime victims began. Even though they were not scientifically studied, victims were recognized as
being harmed by crime, and their role in the criminal justice process has evolved over time.

Before and throughout the Middle Ages (about the 5 th through the 16th century), the burden of
the justice system, informal as it was, fell on the victim. When a person or property was harmed, it was
up to the victim and the victim’s family to seck justice. This was typically achieved via retaliation. The
justice system operated under the principle of lex talionis, an eye for an eye. A criminal would be
punished because he or she deserved it, and the punishment would be equal to the harm caused.
Punishment based on these notions is consistent with retribution. During this time, a crime was
considered a harm against the victim, not the state. The concepts of restitution and retribution governed
action against criminals. Criminals were expected to pay back the victim through restitution. During this
time, a criminal who stole a person’s cow likely would have to compensate the owner (the victim) by
returning the stolen cow and also giving him or her another one.

Early criminal codes incorporated these principles. The Code of Hammurabi was the basis for order
and certainty in Babylon. In the code, restoration of equity between the offender and victim was
stressed. Notice that the early response to crime centered on the victim, not the state. This focus on
the victim continued until the Industrial Revolution, when criminal law shifted to considering crimes
violations against the state rather than the victim. Once the victim ceased to be seen as the entity
harmed by the crime, the victim became secondary. Although this shift most certainly benefited the
state by allowing it to collect fines and monies from these newly defined harms-the victim did not fare
as well. Instead of being the focus, the crime victim was effectively excluded from the formal aspects
of the justice system.

Since then, this state-centered system has largely remained in place, but attention at least from
researchers and activists-returned to the crime victim during the 1940s. Beginning in this period,
concern was shown for the crime victim, but this concern was not entirely sympathetic. Instead, scholars
and others became preoccupied with how the crime victim contributes to his or her own victimization.
Scholarly work during this period focused not on the needs of crime victims but on identifying to what
extent victims could be held responsible for being victimized. In this way, the damage that offenders
cause was ignored. Instead, the ideas of victim precipitation, victim facilita-tion, and victim provocation
emerged.

Two victimologist, Mendelsohn and Von Hentig. Began to explore the field of victimology by
creating “typologies”. They are considered the “Fathers of the study of victimology”. In their efforts
to understand crime, they began to study the behaviors and vulnerabilities of victims such as the
resistance of rape victims and characteristics of the types of people who were victims of crime,
especially murder victims.

Benjamin Mendelsohn (1937)

As an attorney, he became interested in the relationship between the victim and the criminal as
he conducted inter-views with victims and witnesses and realized that victims and offenders often knew
each other and had some kind of existing relationship. Believes that most victims had an “unconscious
aptitude for being victimized”. He created a typology of six (6) types of victims, the first type, Innocent:
portrayed as just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The other five types all contributed
somehow to their own injury, and represented victim precipitation. He advocated a general study of
what he now called victimity”, with a view to reducing it by prevention and victim assistance. The
subjects of his study also includes victims of accidents, natural disasters and other acts of God.

Hans von Hentig (1948)

In studying victimization, von Hentig looked at the criminal-victim dyad, thus recognizing the
importance of considering the victim and the criminal not in isolation but together. He attempted to
identify the characteristics of a victim that may effectively serve to increase victimization risk. He
considered that victims may provoke victimization acting as agent provocateurs based on their
characteristics. All these victims are targeted and contribute to their own victimization because of their
characteristics. He classified victims according to the nature of their involvement in the criminal act. It
was thought that a study of victim’s role might result in a better prevention of crime.

Marvin Wolfgang (1957)

He was the first person to empirically investigate victim precipitation in his classic study of
homicides occurring in Philadelphia from 1948 to 1952. He examined some 558 homicides to see to
what extent victims precipitated their own deaths. In those instances in which the victim was the direct,
positive precipitator in the homicide, Wolfgang labeled the incident as victim precipitated. Example, the
victim in such an incident would be the first to Brandish or use a weapon, the first to strike a blow, and
the first to initiate physical violence. For

Beyond simply identifying the extent to which homicides were victim precipitated, Wolfgang also
identified those factors that were common in such homicides. He determined that often in this ki nd of
homicide, the victim and the offender knew each other. He also found that most victim-precipitated
homicides involved male offenders and male victims and that the victim was likely to have a history of
violent offending himself. Alcohol was also likely to play a role in victim-Precipitated homicides, which
makes sense, especially considering that Wolfgang determined these homicides often started as minor
altercations that escalated to murder.

Since Wolfgang’s study of victim-precipitated homicide, others have expanded his definition to
include felony-related homicide and sub-intentional homicide. Sub-intentional homicide occurs when
the victim facilitates his or her own demise by using poor judgment, placing himself or herself at risk,
living a risky lifestyle, or using alcohol or drugs. Perhaps not surprising, a study of sub-intentional
homicide found that as many as three-fourths of victims were sub-intentional.

Stephen Schafer (1968)

 One of the earliest victimologists, he wrote The Victim and His Criminal: A Study in Functional
Responsibility. Like von Hentig and Mendelsohn, he also proposed a victim typology. Using both social
characteristics and behaviors, his typology places victims in groups based on how responsible they are
for their own victimization. In this way, it includes facets of von Hentig’s typology based on personal
characteristics and Mendelsohn’s typology rooted in behavior. He argued that people have a functional
responsibility not to provoke others into victimizing or harming them and that they also should actively
attempt to prevent that from occurring.

He identified seven categories and labeled their levels of responsibility as follows:

1) Unrelated victims-no responsibility
2) Provocative victims-share responsibility
3) Precipitative victims-some degree of responsibility
4) Biologically weak victims-no responsibility
5) Socially weak victims-no responsibility
6) Self-victimizing-total responsibility
7) Political victims-no responsibility

Menachem Amir

A student of Wolfgang who conducted an empirical investigation into rape incidents reported to
the police. Like Wolfgang, he conducted his study using data from Philadelphia, although he examined
rapes that occurred from 1958 to 1960. He examined the extent to which victims precipitated their own
rapes and identified common attributes of victim-precipitated rape. Alcohol He found that these rapes
were likely to involve a and that the victim was likely to engage in seductive behavior, wear revealing
clothing, use risque language. And have a bad reputation.

What Amir also determined was that it is the offender’s interpretation of actions that is important,
rather than what the victim actually does. The offender may view the victim-her actions, words, and
clothing-as going against what he considers appropriate female behavior. In this way, the victim may
be viewed as being “bad” in terms of how women should behave sexually. He may then choose to rape
her because of his misguided view of how women should act, because he thinks she deserves it, or
because he thinks she has it coming to her. Amir’s study was quite controversial-it was attacked for
blaming victims, namely women, for their own victimization.

Victim Classifications

Victimology is concerned with three categories of victim: primary victims, secondary victims and
related victims. This is because crime creates a ripple effect, depending on the severity of the offense.

The following are the three main types opens in new window of victims discussed in the study of
victimology:

1. Primary victims are individuals who are injured or otherwise directly affected by a crime
committed against them. For example, the primary victim of an armed robbery loses his or her
possessions and may require therapy to cope after experiencing violence.

2. Secondary victims are present at the scene of a crime and may be injured as a result of
witnessing it. They might also be the parent or guardian of the primary victim. The family and
friends of the robbery victim above would be considered secondary victims because the crime
has indirectly affected them.

3. Related victims are people who are dependent on the primary victim, have a close relationship
with the primary victim or are connected to the victim in some other way. The neighbors of the
robbery victim would be considered related victims if the crime occurred ay. For example, on
their street.
General types of Victims

(Based on the classification of Hans Von Hentig, a European lawyer)

1. The Young. Those who are weak by virtue of age and immaturity
2. The Female. Those who are often less physically powerful and easily dominated by males.
3. The Old. Those who are incapable of physical defense and the common object of confidence
scheme.
4. The Mentally Defective. Those that are unable to think clearly.
5. The Immigrant. Those that are unsure of the rules of conduct in the surrounding society.
6. The Minorities. Those that racial prejudice may lead to victimization or unequal treatment by
the agency of justice.

Psychological Types of Victims

1. The Depressed. Those submissive person by virtue of emotional condition. They are seen as
an easy target, careless and unsuspecting.
2. The Acquisitive or Greedy. Those who wants more than what is sufficient makes a natural
victim of crime. They are seen as easily duped because of their motivation for easy gain lowers
their natural tendency to be suspicious.
3. The Wanton or Overly Sensual. Those person ruled by passion and thoughtlessly seeking
pleasure. They are vulnerable to stresses that occur at a given period of time in the life cycle,
such as juvenile victims.
4. The Lonesome. Those person who eventually becomes a victim by virtue of wanting
companionship or affection.
5. The Heartbroken. One who is emotionally disturbed by virtue of heartaches and pains.
6. The Tormented. A victim who asked for it, often from his own family or friends. They are the
victim of attack from the target of his abuse, such as battered woman.

Other Types of Victims

(Benjamin Mendelsohn, a European defense attorney, created his own classification of victim types.)

This includes the following six categories:

Completely innocent victim: a victim who bears no responsibility at all for victimization; victimized simply
because of his or her nature, such as being a child.

Victim with minor guilt: a victim who is victimized due to ignorance; a victim who inadvertently places
himself or herself in harm's way.

Victim as guilty as offender/voluntary victim: a victim who bears as much responsibility as the offender;
a person who, for example, enters into a suicide pact.

Victim more guilty than offender: a victim who instigates or provokes his or her own victimization.

Most guilty victim "who is guilty alone": a victim who is victimized during the perpetration of a crime or
as a result of crime, e.g. an attacker killed by a would be victim in the act of defending themselves.

Simulating or imaginary victim: a victim who is not victimized at all but, instead, fabricates a victimization
event, eg. those suffering from mental disorders, or those victims due to extreme mental abnormalities.

Victimless Crime

Crime without a victim; an illegal act such as prostitution or drug use in which there is no obvious injured
party.

Art. 202, RPC Vagrants and prostitutes;

Vagrants

1. Any person having no subsistence, who has the physical ability to work apparent means of and
who neglects to apply himself or herself to some lawful calling;

2. Any person found loitering about public or semi-public buildings or places or trampling or
wandering about the country or the streets without visible means of support;

3. Any idle or dissolute person who ledges in houses of ill fame; ruffians or pimps and those who
habitually associate with prostitutes;

4. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of other articles of this Code, shall be found
loitering in any inhabited or uninhabited place belonging to another without any lawful or
justifiable purpose;

Prostitutes

For the purposes of this article, women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be prostitutes.

Any person found guilty of any o of the offenses covered by this articles shall be punished by
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, and in case of recidivism, by arresto mayor in its
medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos,
or both, in the discretion of

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9851

“Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes
Against Humanity”

CHAPTER VI

Protection of Victims and Witnesses

Section 13. Protection of Victims and Witnesses.-In addition to existing provisions in Philippine law for
the protection of victims and witnesses, the following measures shall be undertaken:

(a) The Philippine court shall take appropriate measures to protect the safety, physical and
physiological well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses. In so doing, the court shall
have regard of all relevant factors, including age, gender and health, and the nature of the crime, in
particular, but not limited to, where the crime involves sexual or gender violence or violence against
children. The prosecutor shall take such measures particularly during the investigation and
prosecution of such crimes. These measures shall not be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights
of the accused and to a fair and impartial trial;

(b) As an exception to the general principle of public hearings, the court may, to protect the victims and
witnesses or an accused, conduct any part of the proceedings in camera or allow the presentation
of evidence by electronic or other special means. In particular, such measures shall be implemented
in the case of the victim of sexual violence or a child who is a victim or is a witness, unless otherwise
ordered by the court, having regard to all the circumstances, particularly the views of the victim or
witness;

(c) Where the personal interests of the victims are affected, the court shall permit their views and
concerns to be presented and considered at stages of the proceedings determined to be appropriate
 by the court in manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and
a fair and impartial trial. Such views and concerns may be presented by the legal representatives
of the victims where the court considers it appropriate in accordance with the established rules of
procedure and evidence; and

(d) Where the disclosure of evidence or information endangerment of the security of a witness for
his/her pursuant ment this Act may lead to the grave family, the prosecution may, for the
purposes of any proceedings conducted prior to the commencement of the trial, withhold such
evidence or information and instead submit a summary thereof. Such measures shall be
exercised in a manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused
and to a fair and impartial trial.

Section 14. Reparations to Victims.-In addition to existing provisions in Philippine law and procedural
rules for reparations to victims, the following measures shall be undertaken:

(a) The court shall follow the principles relating to the reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including
restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. On this basis, in its decision, the court may, wither upon
request or on its own motion in exceptional circumstances, determine the scope and extent of any
damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims and state the principles on which it is acting;

(b) The court may make an order directly against a convicted person specifying appropriate reparations
to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation; and

(b) Before making an order under this section, the court may invite and shall take account of
representations from or on behalf of the convicted person, victims or other interested persons. Nothing
in this section shall be interpreted as prejudicing the rights of victims under national or international law.