Victimology: An Emphasis on the Lifestyle-Exposure Theory and the Victim

Precipitation Theory as it Applies to Violent Crime

H.L. Dietrich
As early as 1937 scholars in the criminological field were looking at how the
victim’s behavior, lifestyle, and interaction with the suspect(s) had a positive
correlation
with a violent outcome. These studies were mostly within the silent realm of
criminological research only to be revisited over thirty years later.
Up until the rise of the victim’s movement around 1970, crime was generally
analyzed from the perspective of the suspect and his/her actions. The victim’s
rights
movement was just one reason for the shift in focus from the suspect to the victim.
The
growth and refinement of victimization survey methodology and the data gathered
from
it, most importantly in regard to the characteristics of the victim, allowed for
“the
development of explanations that place victims at the center of the theoretical
enterprise”
(Kennedy and Sacco, 1998). Dissatisfaction on the part of some criminologists who
felt
that previous theories and research had not resulted in a better understanding as
to why
crime rates fluctuated was another reason that crime began to be analyzed from the
perspective of the victim.
For the vast majority of violent offenses, the crime does not take place in a
vacuum. By the same token, the “victim” and “suspect” are not always so clearly
defined. In many instances, the final result is the end to what was a series of
events
leading up to that ultimate episode (violence). An example of this would be a
person that
is assaulted or killed after years of physically abusing their spouse, boyfriend,
girlfriend,
or child. This example also lends itself to the second point made in that the line
between
victim and suspect can be somewhat unclear.
In an ideal world, the victim would be in a legitimate place, acting lawfully while
in that place, and have no prior relationship or previous interaction with the
suspect – a
sheep. And in this ideal world, our suspect would be the wolf – coming out of the
woods
and into the pasture to prey upon the innocent sheep. Those in law enforcement know
that is ideal is, for the vast majority of instances, unrealistic. Rarely is there
such a
dichotomy between the suspect and his victim.
Perhaps society needs a clear line of good and bad in an effort to understand and
come to terms with the state of anomie that we currently find ourselves in regard
to
crime. This is exacerbated by the media and their coverage of the events. This
author
has investigated crimes in which the line between victim and suspect was
absolutely,
unequivocally blurred; the news broadcast, however, tends to focus on the condensed
and
most dramatic details. This deliberate action is meant to put a “spin” on the story
in order
to capture and lock in the audience. The siphoning of facts thereby makes the
victim
sound completely pure and innocent, all in the name of tugging on heart strings and
Victimology: An Emphasis on the Lifestyle-Exposure Theory and the Victim
Precipitation Theory as it Applies to
Violent Crime (2008)
Page 1 of 8
getting ratings (suggested reading: Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media
Distort
the News (2003) by Bernard Goldberg). The victim, of course, is not on trial.
However,
the media has a long-standing history of avoiding any culpability on the part of
the victim
as it relates to the violent event.
This is not to imply that the sheep versus wolf phenomenon does not occur.
There are instances in which the victim of a violent crime was as described in the
example of the ideal victim – an individual who was conducting a legitimate act, in
a
legitimate place, and unknown to the suspect. This is evidenced by the Ward Parkway
Mall shooting that occurred on April 29, 2007. A deranged gunman open fire in a
parking lot and inside of a mall with the intent of destroying lives as he calmly
made his
way to his former place of employment. In this case, two individuals lost their
lives for
simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were complete strangers to
the
suspect.
With it being understood that the ideal victim and suspect are a rarity,
victimologists have studied how individuals become victims and why. This endeavor
not
only shifted the focus, but it became a feeding ground for animosity on the part of
victims
and the victim’s rights movement, as they felt that this research was shifting
blame from
the suspect and placing it on the shoulders of the victim. In this author’s
opinion, this is
not the case and the methodical research and its findings have been misunderstood
and
inflamed; particularly in regard to the victim precipitation theory when analyzing
rape
and sexual assault. Although it is a fine line to walk, victims can be the catalyst
of a
crime, or can put themselves into a position in which the probability of becoming a
victim dramatically increases. This article is meant to discuss these theories.
From the late 1930’s through the 1950’s, Hans von Hentig and Beniamin
Mendelsohn “explored the relationships between victims and offenders. They
developed
victim typologies that identified victim characteristics that might increase a
person’s risk
of victimization . . . or even contribute to or precipitate the victimization”
(Tobolowsky,
2000).
As early as 1937 Mendelsohn categorized victims into six types – only one of
which was considered to be “innocent” and in the wrong place at the wrong time. The
other five typologies assigned some responsibility to the victim for contributing
to their
own injury (O’Connor, 2003).
In 1948 von Hentig studied victims of homicide and formulated the following
typologies: the “greedy” type, the “wanton” type, the “depressive” type, and the
“tormentor” type (O’Connor, 2001). His work became the foundation of what is now
called the victim precipitation theory. Marvin Wolfgang continued with this
research a
decade later. Von Hentig and Mendelsohn are considered to be the fathers of
victimology
by the majority of criminologists today.
Victimology: An Emphasis on the Lifestyle-Exposure Theory and the Victim
Precipitation Theory as it Applies to
Violent Crime (2008)
Page 2 of 8
Numerous theories exist as to why people become victims of crime, but this
article will only examine the lifestyle-exposure theory and the victim
precipitation theory.
Current theoretical perspectives tend to divide the reason for victimization into
two
categories: opportunity and victim-offender interaction, although they may overlap
in
some instances.
Criminal opportunity says that unlawful inclination does not equal crime unless
there is the opportunity to commit the offense, and that the opportunity is acted
upon.
For instance, if a gang member waits outside of a night club with a gun waiting for
a rival
gang member to come out, there obviously is an inclination on the part of the would
be
shooter to commit a crime. If the rival gang member was not in that club that night
because he knew he was going to be shot, then no crime has been committed against
him.
If, however, he did go to the nightclub, and he did get shot by the opposing gang
member, a crime obviously has been committed. In the first scenario, the intent was
there, but the opportunity was not. The second example brings the criminal intent
and
opportunity together resulting in an offense.
Another scenario to show how dynamic criminal opportunity is as it applies to
victimology: A traveler from out of state gets turned around and is lost in a
violent part of
town. Not aware that he has driven into a dangerous area, he stops at a gas station
to ask
for directions. As he opens his car door to get out he hears a man telling him to
give him
the keys and is staring down the barrel of a revolver. Unbeknownst to the traveler,
a man
with criminal intent was waiting for an opportunity to commit a crime. Albeit this
victim
is much more innocent than our rival gang member in the previous scenario, one
common
theme exists: opportunity.
Keeping in mind that this is from a victim’s point of view, the criminal
opportunity looks to explore how the victim’s actions allowed, or made it easier
for a
crime to be committed.
Traditional theories of crime just assume that victimization opportunities
are present and then attempt to explain why some people exploit them.
Opportunity theories, however, argue that it is the supply of opportunities,
rather than the willingness of motivated offenders to take advantage of
them, that requires explanation. In short, we need to ask what it is that
people do that presents offenders with criminal opportunities (Kennedy
and Sacco, 1998).
Falling under the scope of the criminal opportunity umbrella is the
lifestyleexposure theory. The theory was authored by Michael Hindeland, Michael
Gottfredson,
and James Garofalo (1978) and the issue they were attempting to address and
understand
was how the victim’s lifestyle influenced their chances of becoming a victim.
Entwined
in this theory are the demographics of the victim and/or the victim’s proximity to
the
offender’s demographics. The criminal opportunity arises from the lifestyle and
demographics of the victim.
Victimology: An Emphasis on the Lifestyle-Exposure Theory and the Victim
Precipitation Theory as it Applies to
Violent Crime (2008)
Page 3 of 8
If the victim is himself involved in
criminal activity, whether it is drugs, robbery,
or assault, he is more likely to associate with
others like him. Statistics show that most
homicide victims are young black males.
Statistics also show that most homicide
suspects are young black males. This is of no
coincidence. “Because individuals are most
likely to interact with those who are similar to
themselves, individuals’ victimization is
directly proportional to the number of
characteristics they share with offenders.”
National Criminal Justice Reference Service).
From a criminal justice perspective,
victims who are also offenders are less likely
to report their own victimization as they do
not want authorities to know about their
illegal activities. Also, these victims are
viewed with suspicion and perceived to be
less credible by police and the courts.
When an offender-turned-victim is using and/or selling drugs or under the
influence of alcohol, they will most likely be associating with others who are
involved in
the same behavior. This article will not address the psychological and
physiological
effects of depressants, stimulants, etc. – particularly their affects on judgment
and
reflexes. However, a victim who is under the influence can be viewed as an easy
target
as his ability to react, defend himself, or flee will be inhibited.

Victimology: An Emphasis on the Lifestyle-Exposure Theory and the Victim

Precipitation Theory as it Applies to
Violent Crime (2008)
Page 4 of 8
Victim-offender interaction looks at
the exchange between victims and
offenders – what was said and by whom,
how the victim and offender responded to
one another, and how those involved acted
toward one another. This interaction may
not be an intentional one. The victim may
be doing or saying something, or be part of
a social group that the suspect views as
either a threat or an opportunity. Theories
under this category have received much
debate and are highly controversial. In no
way, whether it is an opportunity-based
explanation such as lifestyle-exposure
theory or a victim-offender interaction, are
victimologists blaming the victims for their
own victimization.
Instead, these
hypotheses are simply presented as a
possible reason as to why the criminal event
occurred, why the suspect acted the way
s/he did, and use the information to help
prevent similar crimes in the future.
The victim precipitation theory is rooted in
the notion that victims “may initiate, either actively or passively, the
confrontation that
leads to their victimization” (Siegel, Brown and Hoffman, 2006). Active
precipitation
occurs when the victim behaves aggressively or provocatively or even is the first
to
attack. Passive precipitation occurs when victims unknowingly threaten or encourage
the offender.
Published in 1958, Marvin Wolfgang’s expanded Ph.D. thesis, Patterns in Criminal
Homicide, analyzed 588 Philadelphia homicides committed
between 1948 and 1952. The results of his research were that
approximately one-quarter of the homicides were the result of the
victim initiating the aggression (American Philosophical Society,
2004). The point that Wolfgang was making was that “in a
significant number of cases, the stereotypical notion that murders
involve completely innocent victims and completely guilty
offenders is wrong or at the very least misleading” (Kennedy and
Sacco, 1998).
This book was not only the most detailed study that had
Marvin E, Wolfgang 1924-1998

been conducted on victim-offender interaction as it relates to

homicide, but it empirically demonstrated the following: the

Victimology: An Emphasis on the Lifestyle-Exposure Theory and the Victim

Precipitation Theory as it Applies to
Violent Crime (2008)
Page 5 of 8
significant role alcohol plays, that the majority of homicides studied involved
family
members or close friends, and that the victims and offenders were of the same race.
Applying Wolfgang’s model of victim precipitation, Menachim Amir’s Patterns
of Forcible Rape (1971) studied 646 cases of forcible rape in Philadelphia. The
conclusion was that 19 per cent of the offenses were victim-precipitated. Amir
classified
the rapes as such if:
. . . the victim was deemed to have agreed to sexual relations but retracted
before the actual act or did not react strongly enough when the suggestion
was made by the offender. . . . [and that] many women, through
compliance, contribute to their own victimization. Amir’s conclusion
suggests that the victim is to blame for creating the impression that the
offender believes that sexual relations are welcome. It is the refusal to go
through with the sexual encounter that Amir suggests precipitates the rape
(Kennedy and Sacco, 1998)
Of no surprise, these statements had victims and victim’s rights advocates up in
arms. As with Freud and some of his outlandish conclusions, Wolfgang too, at times,
kept the fires of contention burning. In one instance, he theorized that many
victimprecipitated homicides were caused by the “unconscious desire of the victims
to commit
suicide” (Roberson, 1994). This author is uncertain as to how that conclusion was
drawn
or what research was conducted to support that determination.
The victim precipitation theory, if not understood correctly, does seem to imply
that the victim is to blame. When read and applied properly, it theorizes that the
victim’s
actions and/or behaviors, whether intentionally or not, contributed to their
victimization.
For example, if a man buys a woman a few drinks at a bar and then she accepts his
offer
for a ride home, most people agree that this behavior could put the woman in a
compromising position. To the woman, she may or may not be interested in the man
sexually, but the man, at this point, may think that her acceptance of a ride is an
unspoken
agreement that there will be a sexual encounter. If the woman gets raped,
proponents of
the victim precipitation theory are in no way implying that the victim caused the
rape to
occur. What the theory is saying is that this woman’s passive precipitation may
have
influenced the dynamic of the situation thereby rendering her a sheep.
Using the same scenario and not changing any actions or behaviors on the part of
the female, the man may just as easily have dropped the woman off at her home
without
incident. The woman’s actions and behavior did not change but the outcome did. It
was
the man’s behavior that changed the outcome. This example is what the victim
precipitation theory is trying to argue. The potentially hazardous situation was
not created by
either the man or the woman alone; it was formed by the dynamic interaction between
the
two people.

Victimology: An Emphasis on the Lifestyle-Exposure Theory and the Victim

Precipitation Theory as it Applies to
Violent Crime (2008)
Page 6 of 8
Lifestyle-exposure and victim precipitation are just two examples of theories
victimologists have developed to understand and explain why one person and not
another
becomes a victim; knowing that no one theory will ever explain the etiology of
every
crime. This author’s intent was to present two explanations that are both plausible
and
applicable. These theories were also chosen because they are understood on the gut
level
by those in the field of law enforcement, but who are perhaps not aware of the
research
that lies behind the sometimes obvious conclusions.
Law enforcement personnel do not have to be told that the line between victim
and suspect is often blurry. And more so, we are very well aware that a significant
number of violent crime victims are not completely innocent individuals who are in
the
wrong place at the wrong time. This may be deemed by some as a jaded view of
society,
but this article was intended to demonstrate how criminologists have studied crime
from
a victim’s perspective, and have come to the same conclusion(s) that those in law
enforcement have. Without analyzing both the suspect and the victim, one cannot
factually hypothesize why crime occurs. By studying all aspects of violent crime,
realistic explanations can be offered and information can be provided on how to
avoid
becoming a victim of crime.

Victimology: An Emphasis on the Lifestyle-Exposure Theory and the Victim

Precipitation Theory as it Applies to
Violent Crime (2008)
Page 7 of 8
Resources
Crime Characteristics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm.
History of the Victims’ [sic] Movement in the United States.
http://aabss.org/journal2000/ f04Walker.jmm.html.
Kennedy, N. and Sacco, V. (1998). Crime Victims in Context. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Lea, J. (1992). Left Realism: A Framework for the Analysis for Crime.
http://www.bunker8pwp. blueyonder.co.uk/misc/square.htm.
How about victim precipitation? http://myhome2.naver.com /crim2/victim.htm.
National Victim Assistance Academy (1996). Theoretical Perspectives of Victimology
and Critical Research. http://www.ojo.
usdoj.gov/ ovc/assist/nvaa/ch03.htm.
O’Connor T. (2001). Victimology Theory.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOCONNOR/300/3001ect01.htm.
O’Connor T. (2003). Advanced Applied Victimology. http://faculty.ncwc.edu/
TOCONNOR/ 428/428lect03.htm.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society (2004). Marvin Eugene Wolfgang
(Vol. 148, No. 4, December 2004).
Schmalleger, R. (2003). Criminal Justice Today. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Siegel, L., Brown, G., and Hoffman, R. (2006). Criminology: The Core. Ontario,
Nelson Education.
Theoretical Perspective. http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jjbul2002_12_1/page
4.html.
Tobolowsky, P. (2000). Understanding Victimology. Cincinnati: Anderson.
Van Dijk, J. Introducing Victimology.
http://rechten.uvt.n/victimology/other/vandijk.pdf.
Zender, L. Social Dimensions of Crime and Justice: Victims.
http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199249374/resources/synopses/
ch13.doc.

Charts from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Photograph of Marvin E. Wolfgang from the American Philosophical Society.

Victimology: An Emphasis on the Lifestyle-Exposure Theory and the Victim

Precipitation Theory as it Applies to
Violent Crime (2008)
Page 8 of 8