Victimology: shifting the focus from the offender to the victim
If you turn on any true crime documentary, open a thriller novel, or read a news headline about a recent trial, you will notice a distinct pattern: an overwhelming obsession with the offender. As a society, we are captivated by the psychology of the serial killer, the motives of the white-collar fraudster, and the upbringing of the violent assailant. But in this intense spotlight on the perpetrator, a vital half of the criminal event is frequently pushed into the shadows.
This blog post will take a deep dive into victimology—the scientific study of victims, the trauma they endure, and their relationship with the criminal justice system. Historically treated as a mere footnote in criminological research, victimology has evolved into a robust and essential field of study. It demands that we ask not just "why did they do it"? but "who was harmed, why were they targeted, and what could be done to heal them"?
The origins: Mendelsohn, Von Hentig, and early typologies
For decades, classical and positivist criminology focused entirely on the criminal. It wasn't until the mid-20th century that the victim became a subject of serious academic inquiry. The founding fathers of victimology, Benjamin Mendelsohn and Hans von Hentig, began exploring the dynamic relationship between the perpetrator and the victim (Burgess et al., 2013).
Hans von Hentig, in his seminal 1948 work The Criminal and His Victim, argued that the victim was not always a passive recipient of crime but sometimes an active participant in the criminal dynamic. He categorized victims based on psychological, social, and biological vulnerabilities—such as the young, the elderly, or the depressed.
Similarly, Benjamin Mendelsohn, a defence attorney, coined the term "victimology" in the 1940s. He created a highly controversial six-point typology of victims based on their degree of culpability, ranging from the "completely innocent victim" (e.g., a child) to the "most guilty victim" (e.g., an attacker killed in self-defence by their intended target) (Mendelsohn, 1956).
While these early frameworks were ground-breaking because they finally brought the victim into the criminological equation, they have been heavily critiqued by modern scholars. The primary flaw in early victimology was its dangerous proximity to victim-blaming. By focusing on how a victim's behaviour, demographics, or psychology might have precipitated a crime, these early theories inadvertently absolved the offender of full responsibility and placed an unfair burden on the person who suffered the harm (Walklate, 2007).
The concept of the "ideal victim"
To understand how society and the justice system treat victims today, we must look at the work of Norwegian sociologist Nils Christie. In 1986, Christie introduced the concept of the “ideal victim". In essence, it is a person who, when struck by crime, is readily given the complete and legitimate status of being a victim by society.
According to Christie (1986), the "ideal victim" typically possesses specific characteristics:
1. They are perceived as vulnerable or weak (often female, elderly, or very young).
2. They were carrying out a respectable, legal project at the time of the crime.
3. They were in a place where they could not possibly be blamed for being (e.g., walking home from work in broad daylight).
4. They were attacked by a "big, bad" stranger.
5. They are completely unrelated to the offender.
When a victim fits this precise mould, society rallies behind them, and the criminal justice system eagerly prosecutes the offender. However, the reality is that most crime does not look like this. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by acquaintances, friends, or family members. Furthermore, victims who have substance abuse issues, sex workers, gang members, or individuals who fight back often fall outside of Christie’s ideal framework. As a result, they frequently face scepticism, a lack of empathy from the public, and apathy from law enforcement. Recognizing this bias is a cornerstone of modern, critical victimology.
Why are some targeted?
As the discipline matured, criminologists sought to explain patterns of victimization without falling into the trap of victim-blaming. They began looking at environmental and lifestyle factors. Two prominent theories emerged in the late 1970s that remain highly influential today.
Routine Activities Theory
Developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979), Routine Activities Theory posits that a crime requires three elements to converge in time and space:
1. A motivated offender.
2. A suitable target (a person or property).
3. The absence of a capable guardian (e.g., police, security cameras, or even a watchful neighbour).
Cohen and Felson argued that changes in post-WWII society, such as more women entering the workforce and people spending more time away from home, altered daily routine activities. This left homes unguarded and increased the likelihood of strangers crossing paths, thereby increasing the rate of victimization. The theory is pragmatic; it doesn't analyse the deep-seated psychology of the offender or blame the victim, but rather looks at the situational geometry of crime.
Lifestyle Exposure Theory
Closely related is the Lifestyle Exposure Theory, proposed by Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo (1978). This theory suggests that different demographic groups experience varying rates of victimization because their lifestyles expose them to different levels of risk. For example, a young, single male who spends his weekend nights at bars faces a statistically higher risk of violent victimization than an elderly woman who rarely leaves her home after dark.
Both theories are instrumental in helping policymakers design effective crime prevention strategies, such as improving street lighting, increasing community policing, or educating the public on risk reduction, without pointing a moral finger at those who suffer crimes.
Secondary victimization: the trauma of the process
One of the most vital areas of modern victimology is the study of what happens after the crime. The initial criminal act is the primary victimization. However, the subsequent interactions with the criminal justice system, healthcare providers, and the media often result in secondary victimization (Campbell & Raja, 1999).
Secondary victimization occurs when the very institutions designed to help a victim instead cause further trauma. This is particularly prevalent in cases of sexual assault and domestic violence. When a survivor comes forward, they may face invasive questioning by police, disbelief from medical staff, or aggressive cross-examination by defence attorneys designed to dismantle their credibility and attack their character.
Research by Campbell and Raja (1999) highlights how systemic scepticism and bureaucratic procedures can make a victim feel as though they are the ones on trial. This institutional questioning can lead to severe psychological consequences, including exacerbated Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression. It is also a primary reason for the "dark figure of crime", the massive number of crimes that go unreported every year because victims are simply too terrified of the justice system to come forward, or too overwhelmed to deal with the long process.
To combat this, modern victimologists advocate heavily for trauma-informed care. This approach requires police officers, judges, and healthcare workers to understand the neurobiology of trauma, recognizing that a victim's fragmented memory or flat affect is a biological trauma response, not evidence of deceit.
Restorative justice
A restorative justice circle configuration, designed to facilitate structured, face-to-face dialogue between the victim, the offender, and the community.
So, where do we go from here? If the traditional criminal justice system leaves victims feeling side-lined and re-traumatized, what is the alternative?
Many victimologists point to restorative justice as a deeply necessary paradigm shift. Traditional criminal justice asks three questions: What laws were broken? Who broke them? What is the punishment? In this model, the state is considered the primary victim, and the actual human being who was harmed is relegated to the role of a mere witness (Zehr, 2002).
Howard Zehr, a pioneer of restorative justice, argues that we must change the questions we ask. Restorative justice asks: Who has been harmed? What are their needs? Whose obligation is it to meet those needs? (Zehr, 2002).
Restorative justice programs, such as victim-offender mediation, bring the victim and the perpetrator together in a safe, controlled environment. It allows the victim to look the offender in the eye, explain the exact human cost of the crime, and ask questions that the traditional court system never answers (e.g., "Why did you choose my house?"). For the offender, it forces genuine accountability, stripping away the abstract nature of a state-imposed prison sentence and replacing it with the raw reality of the pain they caused.
While not suitable for all crimes, particularly severe cases of ongoing domestic abuse or psychopathy, studies consistently show that restorative justice provides victims with significantly higher levels of satisfaction and psychological closure than the traditional court process, while simultaneously reducing recidivism rates among offenders (Strang et al., 2013).
Final thoughts
Victimology has come a long way from the days of Mendelsohn's rigid, blame-heavy typologies. Today, it is a compassionate, fiercely critical science that challenges us to re-evaluate our preconceived notions of justice.
We must move beyond our cultural fascination with the offender. A truly just society is not measured solely by how efficiently it punishes the guilty, but by how compassionately it restores the broken.
References
Burgess, A.W., Regehr, C. and Roberts, A.R. (2013) Victimology: theories and applications. 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Campbell, R. and Raja, S. (1999) 'Secondary victimization of rape victims: insights from mental health professionals who treat survivors of violence', Violence and Victims, 14(3), pp. 261-275.
Christie, N. (1986) 'The ideal victim', in Fattah, E.A. (ed.) From crime policy to victim policy. London: Macmillan.
L.E. Cohen and M. Felson (2010) “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach (1979),” in M.A. Andresen, P.J. Brantingham, and J.B. Kinney (eds.) Classics in Environmental Criminology. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781439817803-12.
Hindelang, M.J., Gottfredson, M.R. and Garofalo, J. (1978) Victims of personal crime: an empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Mendelsohn, B. (1956) 'The victimology', Etudes Internationales de Psycho-Sociologie Criminelle, 1, pp. 23-26.
Strang, H. et al. (2013) Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) Using Face‐to‐Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A Systematic Review. Campbell systematic review. [Online] 9 (1), 1–59.
von Hentig, H. (1948) The criminal and his victim: studies in the sociobiology of crime. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Walklate, S. (2007) Imagining the victim of crime. Maidenhead ; Open University Press.
Zehr, H. (2002) The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.
