The notion of a victim of a crime was introduced in the second half of the seventeenth century. Before that, victims were ignored, and the idea of having an individual that was killed, hurt, or even tortured by another was non-existent. The term victim came to use in the 1660s, where it became clear that victims formed an integral part of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) ( Daigle, 2016 ). The concept of a victim thus gave rise to victimology, a study of victims of delinquency, and their role in the criminal justice process. A victim is either a community or an individual that has been affected by the direct emotional, physical, or fiscal harm resulting from the commission of a crime. Over the years, victimology has grown to become a discipline that gave rise to various victim typologies that showcased the unique roles of victims in the commission of a crime. Benjamin Mendelsohn is believed to be the father of victimology as he invented the phrase in the mid-twentieth century ( Shoham, Knepper, & Kett, 2010 ). Mendelsohn’s theory of victimization postulates that each victim has an unconscious attitude that contributes to their victimization. His theory contributed to victim-blaming in victimology until when the public realized the impact it had on victims. Organizations and the public then demanded that victims get justice for their victimization. This was realized through the establishment of agencies and organizations that recorded criminal offenses, punished criminals, and protected victims. This research will focus on Mendelsohn’s theory of victimization, focusing on its contribution general victimology and its role in victim blaming.
Mendelsohn’s theory of victimization
Benjamin Mendelsohn was an attorney living in the 1940s and 1950 ( Daigle, 2016 ). During his time, victimology had just been identified as an area of study under criminology. Victimology and criminology were seen as being relative to each other as both had typologies and theories of victims (Brotto, Sinnamon, & Petherick, 2016 ). However, they were two distinct scientific studies that ended up being separated since criminology majored on criminals, while victimology was keen on understanding victims of criminals. Mendelsohn’s interest in understanding witnesses and victims of crime grew exponentially to a point where he took it upon himself to interview different victims and witnesses (Brotto, Sinnamon, & Petherick, 2016 ). His studies were meant to help not only him but other defense lawyers.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Through his research, Mendelsohn was able to coin the phrase victimology, thus his title “Father of victimology” ( Shoham, Knepper, & Kett, 2010 ). Victimology is a science studying the etiology of victimization, the repercussions of victimization, how the CJS accommodates and aids victims, and how different elements of society deal with victims ( Daigle, 2016 ). In his study, Mendelsohn had focused on the role a victim would play in their victimization. This was in a bid to understand victims and offer them better representation. He was also interested in reducing a criminal’s responsibility in the crime they had committed. His interviews thus brought him to the conclusion that the offender and victim knew each other or had some type of existing relations ( Shoham, Knepper, & Kett, 2010 ). He believed that no victim was truly innocent of the crimes inflicted on themselves and suggested that the victim and the criminal formed a penal couple ( Shoham, Knepper, & Kett, 2010 ). This is seen through the typology that he created to showcase the different victims of crime.
Mendelsohn’s typology of victims
Mendelsohn was keen on the work he was doing in his field. Through the interviews and research carried out on witnesses and victims in the mid-20 th century, he had been able to create a typology of victims ( Shoham, Knepper, & Kett, 2010 ). The typology is based on a legal consideration of the victims' degree of blame on the committed crime (Brotto, Sinnamon, & Petherick, 2016). In victimology, the offender and victim relations are very important in understanding roles played in the commission of a crime (McDonald, 2018). The typology of victims was centered on the guilt of a victim and highlighted how one’s behavior and actions could result in their victimization. It is important to note that Mendelsohn was initially working on rape cases, which may help shed light in his categorization of victims ( Daigle, 2016 ). Members of the CJS would question a rape victim’s role in the crime unless it is statutory rape in which case, the victim was viewed to be completely innocent. When compared to other typologies in victimology, Mendelsohn’s typology is seen to be based on situational factors (Brotto, Sinnamon, & Petherick, 2016). The typology is explained below;
The completely innocent victim; This is an individual who did not participate in their victimization ( Burke et al., n.d ). These are individuals who find themselves in an unfortunate situation. The innocent victim is the victim that people imagine of when championing victim rights ( Burke et al., n.d ). A good example of a completely innocent victim is a child beaten to death, who would be an ideal victim in Mendelsohn’s theory.
The victim with minor guilt; This is one who does not actively participate in their victimization but is culpable to some degree ( Burke et al., n.d ). These victims often frequent high crime areas even with the knowledge of the area being dangerous. A good example of such a victim would be an individual who frequents a bar that is notorious for nightly muggings.
The victim as guilty as the offender; This is when the victim and criminal are both conspirators in the commission of a delinquency ( Burke et al., n.d ). The victim’s involvement is no coincidence, as both individuals know exactly what they are doing. A good example of such a victim is one who chooses to rob a store or sell drugs.
A more culpable victim than criminal; This is when the victim instigates their victimization ( Burke et al., n.d ). Such victims provoke the criminal, thus get victimized. A good example would be when a victim may have been the instigator of a fight, but the offender won the fight.
The guiltiest victim; This is a victim who instigated conflict and ends up getting victimized in the process ( Burke et al., n.d ). This is a victim who gets hurt as a consequence of a crime or during the commission of a crime. An example would be a woman who is constantly abused by her husband, killing him while he is in the process of abusing her.
The simulating victim; This is a victim who is never victimized by anyone but fabricates events ( Burke et al., n.d ). This victim will pretend to be victimized by a criminal, making them an imaginary victim. A good example is when one falsifies reports.
Looking at Mendelsohn’s typology, it comes out clearly that he was examining victims as a scientist and also as a lawyer. As a scientist, he tried to understand the process of victimization while looking to assign blame as a lawyer (McDonald, 2018). His typology brings to light the notion that he believed victims to play a role in the victimization that they undergo. This can be deduced from the fact that from the identified typology, only one category consists of an innocent victim ( Burke et al., n.d ). In the remaining five categories, each victim is seen to have played a part in their victimization.
Moreover, under the category of the completely innocent victim, Mendelsohn only talks about a child and the unconscious individual ( Shoham, Knepper, & Kett, 2010 ). This, therefore, can be perceived to mean that provided an adult is conscious; they will play a role in encouraging the victimization that they will face at the hands of the criminal. His typology has thus created a nearly insignificant portion of innocent victims, thereby framing an image in the mind of a reader and everyone else where conscious adults are not included ( Burke et al., n.d ). This is then attributed to the prevalent idea of victims and offenders being co-conspirators.
Factors central to Mendelsohn’s theory of victimization
Initially, Mendelsohn’s work focused on the categorization of victims on their culpability in criminal acts. However, as time went on, he began to venture into other factors that went beyond the offender-victim relation. Mendelsohn argued on the importance of separating victimology from criminology to ensure the discipline was able to alleviate human suffering by helping victims (Brotto, Sinnamon, & Petherick, 2016 ). Mendelsohn had witnessed how victims were ignored in society and how the system had abused and even disrespected victims. It was then that he devoted his time to protect victims from criminals and the system ( Shoham, Knepper, & Kett, 2010) . He proposed the creation of specialized research institutes, victim assistance clinics, and international organizations. Mendelsohn had been keen on victims of crime and how they related to criminals who victimized them (Brotto, Sinnamon, & Petherick, 2016 ). However, with time he began looking at all types of victims from those who were victimized in traffic accidents to those of disasters of all kinds. He referred to his new broader typology as general victimology.
In this general victimology, Mendelsohn proposed five basic factors central to his novel typology. The five categories of victims described include victims of social oppression, criminals, of their actions, of natural environment and of technology ( Bumgarner, 2008 ). These classifications were aimed at assisting those working in the CJS, mental health institutions, and law enforcement agencies to assist victims of criminals; while also educating citizens about behaviors that place them at risk of becoming an injured party ( Shoham, Knepper, & Kett, 2010 ). The categories are explained below;
Victims of the natural environment; These are victims who are affected by natural disasters and events ( Bumgarner, 2008). A good example of such victims would be victims of hurricanes, storms, or earthquakes who suffer mass destruction of their property, thus suffer emotional, physical, or pecuniary harm within their natural environment.
Victims of a criminal; These are the individuals who suffer at the hand of other criminals ( Bumgarner, 2008 ). Such a victim would be one who is attacked during a robbery.
Victims of technology; These are the individuals who become an injured party as a result of relying on technology ( Bumgarner, 2008 ). As society evolves, more scientific innovations increase, and people become reliant upon it. Such victims of technology include those who were affected in Chernobyl after the nuclear accident.
Victims of their actions; These are individuals who are victimized on account of their actions ( Bumgarner, 2008 ). Some of these victims are normally suffering from some type of disability or mental illness ( Bumgarner, 2008 ). A good example of such a victim would be one who engages in risky behavior, like attempting to kill themselves.
Victims of social oppression; These are individuals who suffer as a result of the social environment they find themselves in ( Bumgarner, 2008 ). Such victims are victimized based on societal constructs ( Bumgarner, 2008 ). A good example of such a victim would be a victim of war or genocide.
Victim blaming overview in victimology
Theories in victimology are a result of past and present studies from various contributing theorists and studies conducted. Victimology has been largely influenced by the feminist movement that was aimed at bringing to light most of the issues faced by women ( Daigle, 2016 ). Mendelsohn initially worked on rape, and thus his first typology had been largely influenced by it. The feminist movement showed sexual violence like rape was as a result of social control, a man's power over women and sexuality ( Daigle, 2016 ). The movement was against the idea of victim-blaming, which was quite prevalent concerning sexual violence against women. Victims of sexual violence were blamed for how they dressed, and it was believed that they were responsible for provoking the perpetrators.
As explained above, victim-blaming had been a key part of victimology. When Mendelsohn came up with his first typology, he was convinced that the victim was always culpable to some degree, however much small, to the victimization they received ( Daigle, 2016 ). The only exception to this was the innocent victim who was a child or an unconscious individual. His theory propagated the idea of victim-blaming, which brought about much controversy in the field and among the public (Asli, 2013). Victim blaming is the act of devaluing victims that happens once a crime victim is assigned blame for some or all the crime committed against them (Asli, 2013). Victims often find themselves misunderstood, which contributes to victim-blaming and misunderstanding the acts done unto them (Asli, 2013). Others may believe that the victim has reported the crime done unto them to attract attention, while others may think that they deserved the act.
Victim precipitation helps in explaining the occurrence of victim-blaming in victimology. Through victim precipitation, a victim's role is expanded where they are seen to either have actively or passively precipitated their victimization (Brotto, Sinnamon & Petherick, 2016). Passive precipitation occurs when a victim triggers their attacker unknowingly, like in the case where an individual dress provocatively and ends up sexually harassed (Brotto, Sinnamon & Petherick, 2016). Active precipitation occurs when a victim uses actual force or initiates threatening behaviors to the criminal who victimizes them (Brotto, Sinnamon & Petherick, 2016). These beliefs, however, have been criticized as the only serve to enhance victim-blaming by placing partial or full blame to the victim who suffered under the criminal’s actions.
Most people will not likely victimize victims of drunk drivers, mass shootings, or even burglary. However, those of domestic violence and sexual assault often ends up getting blamed for the acts done on them (Asli, 2013). The issue of victim-blaming first appeared in homicide literature, where the idea of victim precipitated homicides appear as a major contributing factor of homicides ( Daigle, 2016 ). Victim blaming was then seen in sexual assault cases where myths like there was no rape if the victim did not resist, men cannot be raped and the victim provoked the offender existed (WCSAP, 2020). Victim blaming also occurs in other domains such as when one is stalked or if one is a victim of domestic violence. All the myths that exist in these domains where victim-blaming is prevalent suggest that the victim is culpable of the acts done on them as their behavior somehow encouraged their victimization.
With time, the idea of victim-blaming became an issue that society and the public were appalled with. This then led the establishment of organizations that were against victim-blaming and sought to help those who had been blamed for their victimization (WCSAP, 2020). In 1972, the first rape crisis center was launched in the US for all women who were victims of rape (WCSAP, 2020). With time crime rates increased, and people realized how much victims were suffering; they called for harsher punishments for those violating the law. This resulted in more criminals being jailed as a sign of justice to victims ( Burke et al., n.d ). Victims of crime begun volunteering in victim assistance programs to help other victims. The victim rights movements became more popular and demanded changes regarding how victims were treated. The US government then established victim rights, and a national survey to collect information on criminal offenses ( Burke et al., n.d ). It also organized a Law Enforcement Assistance Administration that funded victim and witness programs.
Conclusion
Victims have been abused, ignored, and even disrespected in society and by the CJS. It was not until the mid-twentieth century when victims were identified as an integral part of the CJS. Benjamin Mendelsohn, an attorney who primarily worked on rape, was interested in understanding the notion of a victim better. Mendelsohn's theory of victimization was among the first theories to be postulated in a bid to understand victim-offender relations. Mendelsohn can be described as the father of victimology as he not only came up with the term victimology but also argued for it to become an independent discipline from criminology. In his studies, he identified a victim typology where the victim was vied as being culpable to some extent of their victimization. However, he later produced five categories of victims that would help responsible parties to better serve victims and deter society from behavior that could lead to their victimization.
Mendelsohn's theory propagated the idea of victim precipitation and victim-blaming witnessed in sexual assault and domestic violence cases. Victim blaming grew to be an integral part of victimology. It was not until the victim's rights movements, and organizations put pressure on the government and the CJS to end the suffering of victims, that stern regulations were established. Many criminals got sentenced for their crimes, and this was seen as justice for the victimized individuals. Victims began speaking up and helping others who had been hurt by criminal acts. Victimology is a field of study that is still growing, and the works of theorists such as Mendelsohn still play an integral part in understanding the field.
References
Asli, M., R. (2013). Introducing general theory of victimology in criminal sciences. The International Journal of Humanities, 20(3), 53-79 . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332864714_Introducing_a_General_Theory_of_Victimology_in_Criminal_Sciences
Brotto, G, L. Sinnamon, G. & Petherick, W. (2016). Victimology and predicting victims of personal violence in the psychology of criminal and antisocial behavior. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312152715_Victimology_and_Predicting_Victims_of_Personal_Violence
Bumgarner, J. B. (2008). Emergency management: a reference handbook. ABC-CLIO . https://epdf.pub/emergency-management-a-reference-handbook.html
Burke, A, S., Carter, D. Fedorek, B. Morey, T. Rutz-Burri, L. & Sanchez, S. (n.d). Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System. https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/ccj230/
Daigle, L. E. (2016). Introduction to victimology. SAGE Publications . https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/70565_Daigle_Chapter_1.pdf
McDonald, W. F. (2018). Theories of Criminal Victimization. The Criminal Victimization of Immigrants, 11–28. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69062-9_2. https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69062-9_2
