Criminology

Victimology and Victim Assistance

Victim Precipitation-Role of Victim in Crime Occurrence

1
 Role Name Affiliation
Principal Investigator Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai Registrar, National Law
University Delhi
Paper Coordinator Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai Registrar, National Law
University Delhi
Content Writer/Author Dr. Vibha Hetu Assistant Professor, O.P.
Jindal Global University
Content Reviewer Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai Registrar, National Law
University Delhi

DESCRIPTION OF MODULE

Items Description of Module

Subject Name Criminology
Paper Name Victimology and Victim Justice
Module Victim Precipitation – Role of Victim in Crime
Name/Title Occurrence
Module Id 4
Objectives Learning Outcome:

 To make the learners understand the role of

victim in crime and empirical data to grasp its
seriousness.
 To acquaint the learners with the crimes
which is victim precipitated and its
implications and outcome?
 To make the learners understand that attitude
of some victims define their unconscious
aptitude for being victimized and its role in
further consequences.
 To make the learners understand the role of
victim and the offender are interchangeable.

Prerequisites General understanding of the process of

victimization and the victim.
Key words Victim, Provocation, Precipitation, Targets,
Insinuating

2
1. Introduction

Early research in victimology often concentrated on the degree to which the victim could be
considered responsible for his own victimization. Hans von Hentig (1948) and Benjamin
Mendelsohn (1956 and 1974, cited in Zedner, 2002) were key early figures concerned with the
relationship between the criminal and the victim. Von Hentig (1948, p. 383) referred to the
‘doer-sufferer’ relationship and Mendelsohn discussed the ‘penal couple’ (1974, p. 6). In The
Criminal and His Victim (1948), Von Henting referred to the victim’s contribution to the genesis
of crime and the ‘causative’ role of the victim. He was the first to discuss victim precipitation
and commented on its place in the legal system: The law assumes that the perpetrator is always
the directing agent at the back of any move. It takes for granted that the “doer” is always, and
during the whole process which ends in the criminal outcome, active, the “sufferer” always
inactive. It is characteristic of our legalistic thinking that the notion of provocation has been
allowed to enter into our criminal codes, only in a very limited way. He insisted that victims may
incite, provoke or create a situation conducive to the committing of crime.

2. Typologies of Victims (who contributed somehow to their own injury)

2.1 Von Hentig has discussed the role of victim in crime in the following sentences.

1. Victims whose injury may be the price of a greater gain, e.g., in abortion;
2. Victims who bring about the detrimental result partly by their own concurrent effort; e.g.,
prostitutes;
3. Victims who provoke or instigate the offence, e.g., by challenging the opponent to kill him
if he can and in an emotional state of mind, the opponent accepts the challenge and attacks;
4. Victims who desire the injury.

Mendelsohn’s ‘bio-psycho-social and legal’ approach led to an estimation of victim culpability

in the incidence of crime. He described a situation in which a woman continued to encourage her
ex-husband to visit their child regularly for several years after their divorce, and to stay
overnight, only to be sent away after he had handed over all his money. Commenting on a crime

3
passionnel which involved the murder, by the husband, of his wife and her lover, he concluded
that ‘[t]here can be no doubt that, had it not been for the perversity of his former wife, he (the
husband) would never have been guilty of two crimes’ (1974, p. 6). For eg: Ms. Sita often fights
with her husband Mr. Aman as he does not earn enough for the house. There is always scarcity
of something or the other. The fight is regular. One day, the fight takes an ugly turn and Mr.
Aman loses patience one day and he tightens his grip around his wife’s neck and after a while,
his wife’s body slumps down slowly. He realizes than that he has killed his wife. Ms. Sita’s role
can be cited as that of provoking which ultimately led to her death.

2.2 Mendelsohn created a typology of six (6) types of victims (with only the first type, the
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.

1. Non guilty- innocent victim: This category includes victims who do not share the
responsibility of the offence with the perpetrators. These are innocent victims whom we cannot
expect to be able to avert the offence by anticipating it or by preventing it.
Examples:

 Children who are sexually or physically abused, or neglected.

 Rape or murder victims when the crime is unforeseen, unprovoked, and perpetrated by
complete strangers.
 Severely mentally ill or disabled adults who get hurt or exploited.
 Those who suffer a crime while unconscious.
 Victims of random or rampage shooting.
 Victims of unexpected natural disasters: victims of earthquake in a non-earthquake zone.

2. Victims with Minor Guilt: This category includes victims who with some thought, planning,
awareness, information, or consciousness could have expected danger and avoided or minimized
the harm to themselves. They 'could or should have known better.'

4
Examples:

 Adult victims of repeated domestic violence where shelters are available (after patterns
are established and it is no longer unpredictable).
 Marital rape victims after the first few episodes (when the pattern has been established
and it is no longer a surprise)
 Women who are raped after choosing to get drunk (the minor responsibility is for electing
to be completely helpless and unconscious, at the full mercy of others, in a situation that
has the potential to be dangerous).
 Adults who were victimized due to being in the wrong place and the wrong time, where
with some awareness, preparation, and caution they could have prevented the assault.
 Jews who suffered during the Holocaust (are of course not responsible for the Nazi's
evils, but they could have resisted more, been less co-operative, and not gone like lambs
to the slaughter. They could have read the situation better and left in time, as many of
them (40%) did.

3. Victims who share equal responsibility with the perpetrators: This category includes
victims who share equal responsibility with the offender for the harm inflicted on them. These
are people who are conscious and aware of the situation and chose to be part of it. They are not
caught by surprise, and common sense could have anticipated the damage that occurred.
Examples:

 Co-alcoholics, co-addicts after the initial phase of their relationship (after it has been
clearly established that the partner is an addict).
 A man who contracts a sexually transmitted disease from a prostitute.
 Victims who seek, challenge, tease, or entice the perpetrator.
 Willing participants in a Chicken Game, gun dual or double suicide.

4 Victims who are slightly guiltier than the offender: This category includes victims who
are active participants in an interaction where they are likely to get hurt. While they seek the
damaging contact, the offender can easily withdraw from the situation, unlike those in category

5
#5, to follow. Unlike those in the previous category #3, the offender is less responsible for the
damage than is the victim.

Examples:

 An abusive husband who is killed by his battered wife (he is primarily responsible but, as
this paper states, the abuse must be viewed also as an interaction, and some responsibility
shared between the couple).
 Drunk people who harass sober bystanders and get hurt.
 Cult members who chose to enter the cult as adults and then were brainwashed and
harmed. (i.e., Jonestown, Waco).
 Citizens who collude by passivity in their country's atrocious acts and get hurt by other
countries armies (i.e. politically inactive German civilians who did not fight the Nazi
regime and got killed by the allies army attacks).

5. Victims who are exclusively responsible for their victimization: This category includes
victims who initiated the contact and committed an act that is likely to lead to injury. In these
cases, the one who inflicts the damage is not guilty and acts in pure self-defense or as expected
from his position. This category is reserved for legally and clinically sane adults.
Examples:

 Rapists who are killed by their complete stranger- victims in self-defense.

 Mercenaries who are wounded or killed.
 People who smoke and get lung cancer.
 Suicide by those who are not mentally ill. (Mentally healthy and competent individuals
can choose to commit rationally planned suicide for which they bear the full
responsibility).

6. Simulating (or pretending) victims (such as paranoids, hysterical and senile persons) who
give evidence in the courts in order to obtain sentence against an accused person.

6
In the field of victimology, the attribution of responsibility has been identified as the pivotal
issue (Dadrian, 1976; Schafer, 1977) and a number of concepts (e.g., “provocative,”
“participating,” and “precipitating” victims) have been used to develop typologies that attribute
varying degrees of culpability to victims and offenders in crimes (Curtis, 1974; Fattah, 1967;
Karmen, 1984; Mendelson 1956; Schafer, 1977). On the other hand, some feminist researchers
find that women are considerably more likely to be victims of rape by husbands or ex-husbands
than by strangers (Finkelhor and Yllo, 1982; Frieze, 1983).

Later studies were concerned with types of victim and the role of victims in crime in general or
in specific crimes, such as criminal homicide (Wolfgang, 1958; Fattah, 1971), rape (Amir, 1971)
and robbery (Normandeau, 1968). This perspective on the role of the victim in precipitating
crime suggests that some people put themselves at greater risk of being a crime victim — an idea
that was elaborated in the ‘lifestyle’ model put forward by Hindelang, Gottfredson and Garofalo
(1978). Cohen and Felson (1979) similarly developed a ‘routine activity’ approach to explain
‘direct-contact predatory violations involving direct physical contact between at least one
offender and at least one person or object which that offender attempts to take or damage’
(Cohen and Felson, 1979). According to this model, victimisation in predatory offences occurs
when there is a convergence in space and time of motivated offenders, suitable targets and an
absence of suitable guardians.

Wolfgang (1958: 252) found 26 percent of the Philadelphia slayings he studied to be provoked;
and, using the same definition, Voss and Hepburn (1968:506) put the figure at 38 percent in
Chicago. Holyst's (1967) account of homicides in Poland distinguished a “pre- destined guilty
victim group” within a total of 470 cases, although the exact proportion was not given. These
victims engaged in illegal or quasi-illegal activities (for example, prostitution), experienced
personal problems (alcoholism), acted anti-socially (through, for example, “brutal behavior”),
worked in target-prone legal jobs (taxi drivers, police officers, cashiers), and were “incidentally”
or “permanently” careless. “Incidental carelessness occurs when the victim once and in particular
circumstances creates a situation dangerous for his or her life. Permanent carelessness consists in
exposing one- self to danger by permanent contacts with dangerous surroundings.” The question
of provocation was explored within this unspecified sub-sample. No formal definition of “victim

7
precipitation” was given, but a much broader conception than used here became apparent. “The
range and the forms of provocation are varied. It may take an active or passive form, and its
course may be permanent or incidental. With regard to the element of intent, one can
differentiate conscious from unconscious provocation. From the point of view of moral and
social criteria, one must differentiate pejorative, positive and indifferent provocation” (Holyst,
1969). So conceived, “provocation” was applicable to 49 percent of the Polish cases with "pre-
destined guilty" victims.

2.3 Fattah developed the similar typologies, into a schema comprising the following 10
categories (Fattah, 1991):

Opportunities: these are linked to the characteristics and activities of potential targets.
Risk factors: socio-demographic characteristics including age, gender, area of residence or
absence of guardianship.
Motivated offenders: the criteria by which offenders select their victims.
Exposure: exposure to potential offenders and risk situations enhances the risk of criminal
victimization.
Associations; people run a greater risk of victimization when they have close social or
professional contact with potential delinquents and criminals.
Dangerous times and dangerous places: times when risks are greater, such as late night hours
and weekends, and places at greater risk, such as sites of public entertainment.
Dangerous behaviors: certain behavior, such as negligence and carelessness, enhances the
chances of property victimization while other behavior, such as hitchhiking, may put people
in dangerous situations.
High-risk activities, such as the pursuit of fun, which may include deviant and illegal
activities, also increase the potential for victimization.
Defensive/avoidance behaviors: people who fear crime are more likely to avoid the risk of
victimization by staying at home, for instance.
Structural/cultural proneness: people who are powerless and deprived are more likely to be
victims of crime.

8
The above summary of the contexts which may precipitate or reduce the risk of victimization
illustrates the way in which the positivist victimologist concern with the role of the victim may
be interpreted as ‘victim blaming’.

3. There are four theories which explain the role of the victim in crime
occurrence.

3.1 Victim Precipitation Theory

According to Victim precipitation theory, some people may actually initiate the
confrontation that eventually leads to their injury or death. Victim precipitation can be either
active or passive. Wolfgang (1958) mentioned that precipitation was considered to occur
whenever the victim first used physical force against the subsequent slayer. Active
precipitation occurs when victims act provocatively, use threats or fighting words, or even
attack first. In 1971, Menachem Amir suggested that female sexual assault victims often
contribute to their attacks by dressing provocatively or pursuing a relationship with the
perpetrator. In domestic violence cases, some abused women may commit suicide or attempt to do
so and, in extreme cases, may kill their abusive partner (Spalek, 2006, p. 78).

Victim precipitated aggravated assault was defined in the national survey as occurring when the
victim was first to use either physical force or insinuating language and gestures against the
subsequent attacker. Schultz (1968:139-140) observes: The victims of many assaults and
homicides have what may be called an aggressive-tyrannical personality and engage in acts with
the offender which invite or excite assaultive response. The assaulters and killers can be
described as submissive and passive, desiring to avoid conflict whenever possible, particularly if
playing the masochistic role results in gaining them affection. The victim sadistically exploits
these traits in the offender, becomes demanding, critical, and un- merciful, or threatens to
withhold love and affection. In short, the victim over-steps the offender’s preciously over-
controlled hostility threshold.

9
A cross-cultural forerunner to con- temporary western considerations of provocation for rape can
be found in LeVine’s (1959) work on the Gusii tribe of Kenya. The reported rape rate in Gusii
land is very high (for example, 47 per 100,000 in 1955, compared to 15 per 100,000 in the U.S.
for the same year). Much, perhaps most, of the rea- son may prove to be embedded in re- porting
discrepancies. But courting traditions, acceptable feminine role playing, familial obligations, and
religious interdicts coalesce to produce incidents that might reasonably be called victim
precipitated rape (LeVine, 1959:988):

Gusii girls who have no desire for sexual relationships deliberately encourage young men in the
preliminaries of courtship because they enjoy the gifts and attention they receive. Some of them
act provocative, thinking they will be able to obtain the desired articles and then escape the
sexual advances of the young man. . . An aggressive conclusion is particularly likely if the girl is
actually married. In the early stages of marriage brides spend a good deal of time in their home
communities visiting their parents. Such a girl may ... pretend to be un- married in order to be
bribed and flattered. No matter how emotionally and financially involved in her a young man
becomes, the bride is too afraid of super- natural sanctions to yield to him sexually. After she
fails to appear at several appointments . . . he may rape her in desperation the next time they
meet, and she will report the deed. Thus, victim precipitated rape was defined as an episode
ending in forced intercourse when a female first agreed to sexual relations, or clearly invited
them verbally and through gestures, but then retracted before the act. This was the version used
by Amir (1971).

Among victim-precipitated rapes, as compared with other rapes, Amir found higher proportions
of (1) white victims; (2) white intra-racial rapes; (3) victims between 15 and 19 years of age; (4)
alcohol consumption, particularly by the victim; (5) “bad” reputation of victim; (6) residential
proximity between victim and offender and/or place of offense; (7) victims who met their rapist
at a bar, picnic, or party; (8) victims who were raped in a site other than their or the offenders'
homes; (9) use of coercion by the offender; (10) subjection of victim to sexual humiliation; and
(11) victim-offender relationships involving all categories of "primary" relationships except
those between relatives.

10
Victim precipitation in armed and unarmed robbery was defined in terms of "temptation-
opportunity" situations, in which the victim clearly had not acted with reasonable self-protective
behavior in handling money, jewelry, or other valuables. The orientation was to personal victims,
but applicability to institutions was not ruled out. The temptation-opportunity concept was taken
from Normandeau (1968: 291-292).

In his Boston study, Conklin (1972) confirmed that robbers look for such invitations. Less
skilled, non-career robbers, who casually stole on the street as the opportunity arose, were
concerned with obvious signs of vulnerability in personal victims, such as being old and out
alone at night. Their level of awareness in effect converged quite closely to the type of contexts
re- corded as precipitative in the survey. But Conklin also found that career professionals, who
were usually older and had a relatively greater interest in robbing institutions, conceived of
vulnerability in broader terms, as circumstances which might yield potential pay- offs after
careful planning. Thus, a vulnerable bank might have a rear exit, a poor alarm system, and a
high- way nearby.

DeBaun (1950), writing while serving a sentence for armed robbery, has described how such
professionals find their “marks.” Some targets are sought out by the professional himself -e.g.,
armored cars making deliveries or women appearing in public “festooned like Christmas trees.”
Many other marks are “tipped off by legit, or ostensibly honest, people and no few are put up or
prearranged: a truck driver would like a share of the value of the load of cigarettes or whiskey he
will be carrying; a jeweler wants to beat his insurance company; a bank manager wishes to cover
his embezzlements.”

The law of homicide has long recognized provocation by the victim as a possible reason for
mitigation of the offense from murder to manslaughter, or from criminal to excusable homicide.
In order that such reduction occurs there are four prerequisites (1) There must have been
adequate provocation. (2) The killing must have been in the heat of passion. (3) The killing must
have followed the provocation before there had been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to
cool. (4) A causal connection must exist between provocation, the heat of passion, and the
homicidal act. Such, for example, are: adultery, seduction of the offender's juvenile daughter,
rape of the offender’s wife or close relative, etc. The victim-precipitated cases are those in which

11
the victim was the first to show and use a deadly weapon, to strike a blow in an altercation-in
short, the first to commence the interplay or resort to physical violence.

In contrast, Passive precipitation occurs when the victim exhibits some personal
characteristic that unknowingly either threatens or encourages the attacker. The crime can
occur because of personal conflict—such as when two people compete over a job,
promotion, love interest, or some other scarce and coveted commodity. For example, a
woman may become the target of intimate violence when she improves her job status and
her success results in a backlash from a jealous spouse or partner. In other situations,
although the victim may never have met the attacker or even known of his or her existence,
the attacker feels menaced and acts accordingly.

Passive precipitation may also occur when the victim belongs to a group whose mere presence
threatens the attacker’s reputation, status, or economic well-being. For example, hate crime
violence may be precipitated by immigrant group members’ arriving in the community to
compete for jobs and housing. Research indicates that passive precipitation is related to
power: If members of the target group can establish themselves economically or gain political
power in the community, their vulnerability will diminish. They are still a potential threat, but
they become too formidable a target to attack; they are no longer passive precipitators. By
implication, economic power reduces victimization risk.

Males and females are equally likely to be the victim of a crime. Women are much more
likely to be the victim of a sexual assault or personal theft, while males are more likely to
be the victim of a physical assault or robbery.
The poor are much more likely than the affluent to be the victims of violent crime; the
wealthy are more likely to be the targets of personal theft.
Younger, single people are more often targets than older, married people.
Some people and places are targets of repeat victimization.

12
3.2 Lifestyle Theories

Michael Hindelang, Michael Gottfredson and James Garofalo’s (1978) lifestyle theory is a
close relative of routine activities theory. Some criminologists believe that people may
become crime victims because their lifestyles increase their exposure to criminal offenders.
Victimization risk is increased by such behaviours as associating with young men, going out in
public places late at night, and living in an urban area. Conversely, one's chances of
victimization can be reduced by staying home at night, moving to a rural area, staying out of
public places, earning more money, and getting married. The basis of such lifestyle theories is
that crime is not a random occurrence, but rather a function of the victim's lifestyle.

HIGH-RISK LIFESTYLES: People who have high-risk lifestyles have a much greater chance of
victimization. For example, young runaways are at high risk for victimization; the more time
they are exposed to street life, the greater their risk of becoming crime victims. Teenage males
have an extremely high victimization risk because their lifestyle places them at risk both at
school and once they leave the school grounds. They spend a great deal of time hanging out
with their friends and pursuing recreational fun. Their friends may give them a false
identification so they can go drinking in the neighbourhood bar. They may hang out in
taverns at night, which places them at risk because many fights and assaults occur in places
that serve liquor. Those who have a history of engaging in serious delinquency, getting
involved in gangs, carrying weapons, and selling drugs have an increased chance of
themselves being a target of serious violence. Lifestyle risks continue into young adulthood.
College students who spend several nights each week partying and who take recreational
drugs are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than those who avoid such risky
academic lifestyles (Hindelang, Gottfredon and Garofalo, 1978).

3.3 Deviant Place Theory

According to deviant place theory, victims do not encourage crime, but are victim prone because
they reside in socially disorganized high-crime areas where they have the greatest risk of
coming into contact with criminal offenders, irrespective of their own behaviour or lifestyle

13
(Seigel, 2006). Consequently, there may be little reason for residents in lower-class areas to
alter their lifestyle or take safety precautions because personal behaviour choices do not
influence the likelihood of victimization (Seigel, 2006). Neighbourhood crime levels may be
more important for determining the chances of victimization than individual characteristics.

Deviant places are poor, densely populated, highly transient neighbourhoods in which
commercial and residential properties exist side by side. The commercial establishments
provide criminals with easy targets for theft crimes, such as shoplifting. Successful people stay
out of these stigmatized areas. They are home to “demoralized kinds of people” who are easy
targets for crime: the homeless, the addicted, the mentally ill, and the elderly poor.

People who live in more affluent areas and take safety precautions significantly lower their
chances of becoming crime victims; the effect of safety precautions is less pronounced in poor
areas. Residents of poor areas have a much greater risk of becoming victims because they
live in areas with many motivated offenders; to protect themselves, they have to try harder to
be safe than do the more affluent.

3.4 Routine Activities Theory

Routine activities theory was first articulated in a series of papers by Lawrence Cohen and
Marcus Felson (1979). Cohen and Felson assume that both the motivation to commit crime
and the supply of offenders are constant. Every society will always have some people who are
willing to break the law for revenge, greed, or some other motive. The volume and
distribution of predatory crime (violent crimes against a person and crimes in which an
offender attempts to steal an object directly) are closely related to the interaction of three
variables that reflect the routine activities of the typical North American lifestyle:

The availability of suitable targets, such as homes containing easily salable goods,
The absence of capable guardians, such as police, homeowners, neighbours, friends,
and relatives, and
The presence of motivated offenders, such as a large number of unemployed teenagers.

14
The presence of these components increases the likelihood that a predatory crime will take place.
Targets are more likely to be victimized if they are poorly guarded and exposed to a large group of
motivated offenders such as teenage boys.

4. Conclusion

According to some victimologists victims trigger criminal acts by their provocative behaviour.
Victimization risk is increased when people have a high-risk lifestyle such as placing oneself at risk by
going out to dangerous places results in increased victimization. People who live in deviant places are at
high risk for crime. No matter how conducive the environment is in terms of equality, culture, ethics,
morality, there will always be certain people who would commit crime and they are likely to find
vulnerable persons whom they can victimize. The victims too gets into trouble by being careless,
inattentive, walking in an area which is crime prone etc. they become victims of crime by virtue of
passive precipitation even where they did not indulge in behavior which might excite the offender. the
victimologists tried to find the answers to the increasing crimes and rise in different patterns of crime by
studying the role of victim in causing crime. Then, they interviewed victims to obtain information about
crime, and their analysis led them to believe that most victims had an “unconscious aptitude for being
victimized.”

5. References:

1. Amir, M. Patterns in Forcible Rape. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.

2. Cohen, L. E. and Felson, M. “Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities
approach.” American Sociological Review 44, no.4 (1979): 588-608.
3. Conklin, J. Robbery and the Criminal Justice System. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1972.
4. Curtis. L. A. Criminal violence: National patterns and behavior. Lexington. Mass.: Lexington
Books, 1974.

15
5. Dadrian. V. N. “An attempt at defining victimology.” in Victims and society edited by
Viano, 1976. p. 40-42.
6. DeBaun, E. 1950 “The heist: the theory and practice of armed robbery.” Harper’s 200. 1950,
p. 69-77.
7. Fattah. E. A. “Towards a criminological classification of victims.” International Criminal
Police Review 209 (1967): 162-69.
8. Finkelhor. D. and K. Yllo “Forced sex in marriage: A preliminary research report.” Crime
and Delinquency 28, no.3 (1982): 459-78.
9. Frieze, I. H. “Investigating the causes and consequences of marital rape.” Signs 8, no.3
(1983): 532-53.
10. Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R. and Garofalo, J. Victims of personal crime: An
empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger ,
1978.
11. Holyst, B. Detection of Criminal Homicide. Warsaw: Juridical Edition, 1967.
12. Holyst, B. “Factors connected with homicides and their importance in investigations.”
International Criminal Police Review 226 (1969): 78-80.
13. Karmen. A. Crime victims: An introduction to victimology Belmont. Cal.: Brooks/Cole,
1984.
14. LeVine, R. “Gusii sex offenses: a study in social control.” American Anthropologist 61
(1959): 465-490.
15. Mendelsohn, B. (1956) “Une nouvelle branche de la science bio-psycho-sociale: victi-
mologie.” Revue internationale de criminologie et de police technique, 1956. p. 10-31.
16. Mendelsohn, B. “The origin of the doctrine of victimology.” in Victimology edited by
I. Drapkin and E. Viano, Lexington: D.C. Heath & Co, 1974.
17. Normandeau, A. “Trends and Patterns in Crimes of Robbery.” Ph.D. Dissertation,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1968.
18. Rollin M. Perkins. “The Law of Homicide.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 36,
(March- April, 1946): 412-427.
19. Schafer. S. Victimology: The victim and his criminal Reston. Va: Reston. 1977.
20. Schultz, L. “The victim-offender relationship.” Crime and Delinquency 4, (1968): 135-141.

16
21. Seigel, L. J. (10th ed.) Criminology. University of Massachusetts, Lowell: Thomson
Wadsworth, 2006.
22. Spalek, B. Crime Victims: theory, policy and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
2006.
23. Von Hentig, H. The Criminal and His Victim. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948. p.
383-5.
24. Voss, H., and Hepburn, J. “Patterns in criminal homicide in Chicago.” Journal of Criminal
Law, Criminology and Police Science 59 (1968): 499-508.
25. Wolfgang, M. Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1958.
26. Zedner, L. “Victims.” in The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (3rd ed.) edited by M. Maguire,
R. Morgan and R. Reiner, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

17