Criminology

Victimology & Victim Justice

Victim Typology
 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. Hunny Matiyani Assistant Professor
(Criminology)
LNJN National Institute of
Criminology & Forensic
Science, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Rohini, Delhi
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 & Victim Justice
Module Victim Typology
Name/Title
Module Id 13
Objectives Learning Outcome:

 To acquaint the learners with the different

typology of victims as classified by some
known victimologists.
 To get an insightful understanding about the
emergence of “victim” i.e. how the victim
came into picture after studying only
criminals for many years.
 To make the learners understand the
relationship between victim & the offender
and how victims consciously or unconsciously
participated in their victimization.

Prerequisites General understanding of the concept of victimology

Key words Victim, Victim-offender relationship, Criminal-victim

dyad, Agent Provocateur, General victimology
1. Introduction
1.1 Concept of Victim
The “victim” is derived from the latin word victima. The concept of victim is quite
ancient and is found in many cultures and is totally knotted with religious sacrifices.
The ancient people often practice the idea of divine human or animal sacrifice in
almost all religious rituals from all parts of world. Epics and mythology offer
numerous examples of symbolic sacrifices of victims. One of such references can be
seen in bible (Leviticus 1.2, 1.14, 2.1 etc.) where exactly the word ‘victim’ is not used
but the concept of a human suffering from the act of an aggressor is mentioned. The
murder case of Abel who was the second born son of Adam and Eve: Abel was
murdered by his own brother named Cain. In Bible, Cain was described as “a tiller of
the soil” and Abel as “a keeper of sheep”. As per the Judaic translations they both
prepared a thanksgiving sacrifice and the God preferred Abel’s offering. Hence, in a
fit of rage and jealousy, Cain slew his brother and became the first murderer in
history. Cain was finally banished from the civilization but during the confrontation
with the God, he was being informed that his brother’s blood cried out to the God
from the ground for justice. Hence, this biblical reference reflected the suffering of
the victim (Abel) in terms of “blood cries to the God”. (Burgess, Regehr & Roberts,
2010)
1.2 Victim throughout the History
When there was no existence of written laws, the codes of behaviour reflected the
prevailing social norms. The responsibility of dealing with the offenders was in the
hands of victims or their family members. There was no authority to help victims in
enforcing the laws and they were supposed to help themselves. There were certain
behaviours such as murder which was totally unacceptable to the society which was
referred to as “mala in se”. in those cases too, it was up to the victims or their
survivors to decide what action to take against the offenders. But that doesn’t mean
there was no provision or system which is to be followed by the victims. Society
recognized the system based on retribution and restitution. Retribution meant that the
offender should suffer in proportion to the degree of harm caused to the victims
because of the actions. Restitution meant to repay the amount sufficient to keep the
victim back in the same position. Sometimes, the restitution replaces retribution and
sometimes, if the offender was unable to restitute the victim, then his or her family
member was forced to take over the liability. “Lex talionis” an eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth was the principle on which the system was based. Punishment was
equivalent to the harm caused to the victim. Infact, the most important feature of this
system was that the victims or his/her family members were at the focus and they
were actually the beneficiaries of any payments. This arrangement was actually a
“victim justice system”.
Over a period of time, this system found its way into early codified laws such as the
Law of Moses, the Code of Hammurabi, Roma Law and Manusmriti. All the codes
emphasized on the responsibility of the individual for causing harm. Restitution,
retribution along with deterrence was the Key ingredients in many of these codes. The
main goal of deterrence was to prevent such future wrongs or deviance. Restitution
and retribution attempted to re-establish the status of the victim existed before the
offender’s action same as used in lex talionis principle. Eventually, this system of
dealing with the offenders and giving preference to victims fell into disuse. The first
change was observed when feudal barons started claiming the compensation paid to
the victims by the offenders. (Schafer, 1968) They saw this money as a easy way to
increase their own wealth. In order to claim compensation legally, the barons gave a
new definition of criminal acts as violations against the State rather than against the
victim. This move made the State as an aggrieved party, hence, depreciating the status
of victim as mere witness only.
The second change was the society’s transformation which reduced the position of
victim. During the rural and agrarian society, people used to live in small groups and
struggled to meet day to day needs by doing labour in the fields daily. The people
were dependent on their family for assistance; hence, whenever a crime took place, it
brought harm not only to the individual victim but also to entire family. This type of
society (gameinschaft) relied on the individuals to handle their problems. As we
moved towards the middle ages, the Industrial revolution leads to heavy migration of
people from rural fields to take jobs in industries. This relocation created a demand
for large urbanized communities forcing people to share small spaces totally
surrounded by strangers. There was less recognition with people living in neighbours.
The relationships grew more depersonalized as the faces blended into crowds. The
interpersonal ties got vanished. As this type of society (gesellschaft) continue to grow,
the old victim practices withered away further. The concern was shifted from making
the victim deal with the criminal to leave everything on the State. Gradually the
criminal justice system replaced the victim justice system. Hence, victims could no
longer take matters in their hands to extract retribution and restitution; rather they
were compelled to call upon society to act.
1.3 Social Construction & Deconstruction of Victims
There was a confusion while defining the victim whether it can be termed as a label or
stereotype or conditions or a self perception or social construction etc. Hence,
Quinney (1972) suggested that victim is nothing but a social construction which keeps
on changing with the time and societal perception depending on their wisdom towards
the understanding of any issue. In every society, there is a continuous process of
construction and deconstruction of victim’s ideology. For example, the practice of
witch hunting used to label the witches as being criminal and dangerous which over a
period of time defined those witches as victims of witch hunts. Domestic violence was
once upon a time an acceptable feature in the society and the women subjected to
violence didn’t assign the victim status. Sati, widow remarriage, child marriage are
such examples of social construction of victims. (Fattah, 2010)
2. Re-emergence of the Victim
Gradually diverted criminal justice system spends much of its time trying to control
and study criminals. While understanding the criminal activities and searching for the
reasons behind criminal behaviour, the victims were revived in 1940s. The 1940s saw
the advent of victimology. The researchers began to look at the relationship between
the victim and the offender in order to understand the genesis of criminal act better.
Interestingly, the victims emerged as a possible partner or contributor to the criminal
act not a sympathetic person who needs help from the justice system. The need to
understand the dynamics which leads one to become victim and other an offender
began to attract more scholarly attention. Hence early victimological work
concentrated mainly on categorizing different types of victims or victim typologies.
Benjamin Mendelsohn and Hans Von Hentig were the two pioneer victimologists who
developed victim typologies, which created a base for others to further study the
victims. The following sections of this module will throw light on theoretical
reflections on victim typologies as explained by different pioneers in the field of
criminology and victimology. (Doerner & Lab, 2012)
2.1 Benjamin Mendelsohn
Benjamin Mendelsohn, in 1940, coined the term “Victimology”, and proposed that
this should be an entirely new field of study instead of merely a branch in
criminology. He was a practicing attorney and in order to prepare a case for trial, he
used to conduct in-depth interviews of victims, witnesses, accused by-standers and all
who had knowledge of the crime. (Mendelsohn, 1963) The questionnaire developed
for conducting interviews contained approximately 300 questions concerning the
branches of criminology and allied sciences. On the basis of these studies,
Mendelsohn came to the conclusion that there was a strong interpersonal relationship
between the offender and the victim and most of the victims unconsciously participate
in their own victimization. Mendelsohn’s (1940, 1974) original formulation classified
victims according to their relative degree of responsibility and power to control or
affect the situations.

Victims as Victims more

Guilty as Guilty than
Offender Offender
Victims with
Minor Guilt (Assist others (Victim
in committing provokes or Most Guilty
(Victims crimes) instigates) victims
unknowingly
places himself (Started off as
in offender and
compromising was hurt in
situation) turn)

Completely
Innocent
Imaginary
Victims
Mendelso Victims
(No
provocation or hn’s Types (Pretend to be
a victim)
facilitating
behaviour)
(Mendelsohn, B. (1956), The Victimology. Etudes Internationale de Psycho-Sociologie Criminelle,
July 23-26)

2.1.1 Completely Innocent Victims

This category includes victims who don’t share any responsibility of the crime with
the perpetrator. They are innocent people on which nobody can put a blame for not
preventing the crime. They are actually the ideal victims. The examples of this
typology are:
 Children who are physically, psychologically and sexually abused come under
this category as they are incapable to prevent any future occurrence of crime.

A 13 year old school girl from Barampur

Village, Malda was molested inside the
school campus by a group of youths who
often used to tease her. Just because she
turned down the proposal of one of them, all
three of them conspired against her to take
revenge of their insult.

 Rape or murder victims when the crime is unforeseen, unprovoked and

perpetrated by strangers.

Shiv Kumar Yadav, 32 year old Uber cab

driver, raped and sexually assaulted a 25 year
old woman executive during the drive inside a
radio taxi in the national capital.

 Victims of unexpected natural disasters.

In 2013, Uttarakhand suffered from a major

catastrophic natural disaster in the form of
huge and deadly cloudbursts, causing flash
floods in Ganga River. The death toll was
estimated to be approx 5700.

 Victimization while the victim is unconscious. As in cases where the victim is

drugged first and then the act is committed with the victim.
  Victims of random or rampage shooting.

The groom’s father was shot at head

accidentally during the wedding ceremony at
Jandla village, Central India after a guest lost
control of his rifle during the traditional
celebratory gunfire.

2.1.2 Victims with Minor Guilt

This typology includes all those victims who could have expected danger with some
thought, planning, awareness, information or consciousness and avoided or atleast
minimized the harm. The examples of this typology are:
 Victims of repeated domestic violence- In Indian set up, where the females
either accept this violent setting as a normal behavior or forego every violent
day in order to save the relationship can be perfectly put under this typology.
 Person walking on a dark street alone at off hours- Sometimes a bit of
planning and awareness can reduce the risk of getting victimized. One should
always avoid dark streets especially at odd hours when the movement of
people is less. The chance of getting robbed or raped or assaulted is more
under such circumstances.
 Going on a blind date-

A Delhi University student aged 20 years

went on a blind date with someone she had
interacted with on facebook and on phone.
The victim met him at a café where he
offered her a drink laced with sedatives. He
later took her to a flat and raped her. The
case was registered at Dwarka (North)
police station, Delhi.
2.1.3 Victims as Guilty as Offender
This typology includes those victims who shares equal responsibility with the
offender for the victimization. They are those people who are actually conscious and
aware of the situation and they themselves choose to be a part of it. Keeping in mind
that all the sane adults carry a common sense which helps them in anticipating the
future damage and if they don’t use that common sense then they held equally
responsible for the act committed with them. The examples of this typology are:
 Visiting a prostitute and using unsafe sexual practices and ultimately
contracting a sexually transmitted disease from the prostitute.
 Victims who challenges or entices the perpetrator- Arguments turned into a
fierce fight between two neighbours and one of the neighbours hit the other on
the head with the iron rod because of the challenge placed before him to show
‘what he got’. OR Enticement to the robber by flashing your wealth and not
keeping it safe and vigilant about the same.

2.1.4 Victims more Guilty than the Offender

This typology includes victims who actively participated in the interaction where
there is a likelihood of them getting hurt. The offender can be easily withdrawn from
the situation if victim acted differently in a responsible manner. Under this category,
the offender is less responsible for the damage unlike in the above category. The
examples of this typology are:
 In an abusive relationship, the husband i.e. the abuser is killed by his wife.
 Drunkards who harass others and gets hurt in return.

2.1.5 Most Guilty Victims

This typology includes victims who are exclusively responsible for their
victimization. The victims themselves initiated the contact and committed an act
which in turn leads to their injury. The examples of this typology are:
 Rapists who are killed by their victims in self defense.
 People who smoke and get lung cancer.
 People who do drugs and ultimately destroys their life.
 A rationally planned suicide by mentally fit person.
2.1.5 Imaginary Victims
This typology includes victims who suffered no victimization but accuses others for
the same falsely. These victims are generally unaware of the reality of the situation.
The examples of this typology are:
 In few dowry cases or domestic violence cases, the females willingly act as an
imaginary victim in order to settle down scores with the in-laws.

In all, the Mendelsohn classified victims with respect to the culpability for a crime.
However, his classification somehow made the victims responsible for their own
victimization to a certain extent, which was actually considered as a problem for the
victimology field.
2.2 Hans Von Hentig
Hans von Hentig, a German scholar, was also considered as an early pioneer in
victimology. As a criminologist, he tried to discover why a person is predisposed
towards criminality and as a victimologists, he focussed on the criterias which made a
person a victim. The key ingredient cited by Hentig in his writings was Criminal-
Victim Dyad (symbolic relationship between criminal and victim). He insisted that
victims often play a major role in his/her suffering. Hence, if you simply examine the
outcome of a criminal event, then it actually presents a vague image of who the real
victim or offender is. Hentig, keeping in mind, the victim’s contribution towards
crime, explained the status of victim as an Agent Provocateur, in his book called “The
Criminal & his Victim” (1948). Agent Provocateur as explained by Hentig was that
“increased attention should be paid to the crime-provocative function of the
victim…”. However he was not naïve enough to believe that all the victims actively
contribute to their victimization. There were many who became victim because of
certain characteristics or social position beyond their control. Initially, he developed
three broad categorization of victims’ i.e.
 General Classes Psychological Activating
of Victims Types of Victims Sufferer
• Incorporates • Incorporates • Incorporates
those who are those who are those who
weak because of psychologically ultimately turned
age, gender and vulnerable like into an offender
certain depressed,
vulnerabilities like acquistive etc.
feeble minded
ness, minorities
etc.

Ultimately, Hentig expanded the above three categories into thirteen typologies which
were based on psychological, social and biological factors, in contrast to
Mendelsohn’s categories based on guilt and responsibility. (Hentig, 1948, Burgess,
Regehr & Roberts, 2010, Wallace & Cliff, 2011)

Types Explanation
The Young  Viewed by criminals as weak, inexperienced or
(infants, vulnerable to attack
children)  Not usually victims of crimes for profit
 May be kidnapped for profit or used by criminals to
commit crimes against property
 Now days, the organized criminals are using young
children to traffic drugs or use them in contract killing
because they know, the children can get away easily from
the clutches of law.

The Female  Termed as a weaker sex as generally they have less

strength against the attacker
 Because of their gender status they can be an easy victim
of flesh trade, domestic violence, sexual violence, dowry
etc.

The Old (elderly  Same as female category, they are also weak and
person) mentally feeble but they have an accumulated wealth as
well which makes them more vulnerable towards
victimization
 Robbing and murder of elderly couples living alone in
metro cities is a common news these days

The Mentally  They all are identified as handicapped in any struggle

Defective against crime
(mentally ill,  Hence, they are the easy targets of thieves, gambler and
mentally social criminals
retarded,
substance abuse)
Immigrants  Quite vulnerable as while adjusting to a new culture with
(people migrated different group of people who might reject them, they can
from some other be a victim of byproduct of immigration problem i.e.
place and poverty, emotional difficulties, unemployment etc.
carrying a  Criminals often speculate the immigrant’s disturbed
different culture) situation and take advantage of that

Minorities  As they suffer from the problem of identity, problem of

(racially security and problem relating to equality, it increases
disadvantaged their chances of victimization
persons)  Example includes riots between hindu and sikh and hindu
and muslim where one of the religion is in minority
 Victimization of tribals
 Dalit victimization

Dull Normals  Can be termed as born victims

(simple minded  Any criminal can exploit their vulnerability because of
persons) their less understanding about anything

The Depressed  This category of victims is unable to have any fighting

(person with qualities (reduced mental resistance) because of their
apathetic and current mental state
submissive  Disturbed instinct of self preservation and without such
attitude) an instinct, the individual may be surprised by dangers or
enemies

The Acquisitive  Excessive desire for gain interrupts intelligence, business

(the greedy, experience and inner impediments
looking for quick  Racketeers and gamblers generally exploits this category
gains)
 of people

The Wanton  Hentig described them as dimmed by generalization of

(undisciplined, laws and obscured by social conventions
reckless and  Someone who knows that drinking and driving is illegal
promiscuous and harmful too but drives homes anyways
persons)
The Lonesome  These individuals become easy prey as their loneliness
and the makes them weak
Heartbroken  Heartbroken people are in set back because of their loss
(those in and hence become an easy target
mourning)  After the sudden demise of the husband, the son got her
mother’s signature on property documents

The Tormentor  This type of victim creates a stressful situation to such a

(victims becomes degree that he/she becomes a victim of that stressful
a perpetrator) atmosphere which was created by them
 Example includes an alcoholic father who tortured his
family over a period of time but finally killed by one of
the family members under extreme provocation

The Blocked,  Victim who has been so enmeshed in a losing situation

Exempted and that defensive moves become impossible
Fighting (victims  Type of self-imposed form of helplessness and an ideal
of blackmail, situation for a criminal
extortion,  A businessman having black money got a ransom call
confidence after son’s kidnapping and then unable to seek police
games) assistance

2.3 Stephen Schafer

Stephen Schafer, reviewed both Mendelsohn and Hentig’s work and attempted to
classify victims on the concept devised by him i.e. “functional responsibility” in his
book, The Victim & his Criminal (1968). According to the concept, the victimization
occurs as a result of the functional interplay of causative elements. He also explained
that while studying the criminal-victim relationships it is imperative to recognize the
role and responsibility of the victim because it helps in searching the objective behind
the criminal incident and devising a functional solution for the same. He believed that
the responsibility of the victim is a critical issue in the problem of crime as all crimes
simply “happen” to be committed, but some victims often contribute to crime by their
acts of negligence, precipitation or provocation. Hence, the Schafer’s typology was
totally based on the responsibility of victims in precipitating the crime. (Schafer,
1968)

Types Explanation
Unrelated  Incidents in which victim is an unfortunate target of the
Victims (no offender
victim  A woman buying groceries from a store got robbed when
responsibility) robbers entered into the shop
 A child getting sexually abused

Provocative  Incidents in which offender reacted to some action or

Victims (victim behavior of the victim
shares  Person ‘A’ insulted and abused person ‘B’ in front of
responsibility) family members. In order to take revenge person ‘B’
murdered person ‘A’

Precipitative  Incidents in which victims make themselves vulnerable

Victims (some for victimization by placing them in dangerous settings
degree of victim  A woman coming home late night alone after attending a
responsibility) party and was wearing the gold ornaments got robbed

Biologically  Incidents in which victims gets victimized because of

Weak Victims their physical condition i.e. Aged, young, infirm and
(no victim others
responsibility)  Robbery and murder of elderly couple living alone
 Physical abuse of children by the hands of parents or
teachers

Socially Weak  Immigrants or minorities are susceptible towards

Victims (no victimization as they are not adequately integrated into
victim the society
responsibility)  A village girl coming from a submissive culture settled in
a metro city for continuing her education can be easily
sexually abused by the boys who are clever enough to
take advantage of her simplicity

Self Victimizing  Incidents in which the victims are involved in crimes

Victims (total such as drug abuse, prostitution, gambling etc. where they
victim act in concert with the criminal act
responsibility)  Drug addict resorts to shoplifting and pick pocketing in
order to meet his drug demands

Political Victims  Individuals who oppose those in power and are

(no victim victimized in return to be kept under control
responsibility)

2.4 Fattah
Fattah (1967) also classified victims according to their level of participation in the
crime parallel to Mendelsohn’s types which are as follows:

Non
Participati
ng Victim

Latent or
False
Predispos
Victim
ed Victim
Fattah's
Typology

Precipitati Provocati
ng Victim ve Victim

2.5 Mendelsohn
Mendelsohn, as a true victimologist, attempted to assure victimology of its
independence from criminology, devised the term General Victimology. According to
this new concept, human beings suffer from many victimizations, hence focussing
only on criminal victimization is too narrow. According to Mendelsohn (1976),
General Victimology subsumes five types of victims. It includes victims of:-
 A Criminal
o All the crime victims can fall under this category
  One’s Self
o Includes victims of the sufferings induced by themselves only
example- suicide
 The Social Environment
o Incorporates individual, class or group oppression example- caste
disparities, genocide, war atrocities
 Technology
o People who fall prey to scientific innovations example- nuclear
accidents, industrial pollution, improperly tested medicines etc.
 Natural Environment
o Persons affected by floods, earthquakes, hurricanes etc.

2.5 Zur
In continuation to Mendelsohn’s typology, Zur (1994) further described the typology
and judged the degree of guilt, ranging from total innocence to 100% guilt. He
emphasized that certain parameters should be assessed before evaluating the degree of
responsibility otherwise it’ll be controversial, inconclusive and incomplete to judge
any given situation. The cultural, demographic and personal variables are nevertheless
critical for any assessment of guilt and responsibility. Those parameters are:-

Minorities are more vulnerable to

 Ethnicity victimization instead of
majorities

Women are more disposed to

victimization then men in certain
 Gender
crimes like sexual and domestic
violence

Poor are more susceptible

towards victimization in
 Socio-Economic Status
comparison to rich as they don’t
have means to save themselves
 Less attractive, weak vs. more
 Physical Attributes attractive, strong

Mentally ill, dysfunctional vs.

 Mental Status reality based, functional

Abused and neglected vs. loved

 Familial Background and nurtured

Culture that promote violence vs.

 Cultural Values those promote harmony

2.6 Young Rifai

In 1982, Young Rifai argued that a human being interacts with other human beings
and the environment to fulfil their needs. In order to fulfil their needs, the interaction
features the maximization of rewards and minimization of costs, as per Social
Exchange Theory. She pointed out that an imbalance between the human being and
the environment creates a victim. Hence, victim can be described as an individual
who has expended disproportionate costs for the value received and the degree of
victimization depends upon the amount of cost and the degree of loss suffered by the
victim. She suggested the following typology of victims:-
 Biophysical victim: Victims who suffers injustices because of certain physical
anomaly or racial characteristic or mental handicaps
 Victims who suffer injustices because of natural disasters like floods,
tornadoes, earthquakes and other acts of God etc.
 Victims who suffer injustices caused by interfacing environment like air
pollution, water pollution, lead poisoning etc.
 Victims suffering caused by social environment. Example- political victim,
economic victim, cultural victim and crime victim
 Victims of technology Example- car accidents and industrial accidents
3. Summary
As long as we talk about crime, victim will remain in the discussion. However, it was
not the case earlier. Before 1940s, all the discussion about the crime was revolving
around the criminals only. But the work of two pioneer victimologists i.e.
Mendelsohn and Hentig, deviated the discussion from criminal to victim. Hence, the
‘victim’ as a concept developed a totally separate discipline i.e. victimology. The
module discussed how the early works done in the discipline of victimology leads to
the explanation of victim and its categorization into varied sub types. The typologies
given by different victimologists explained how a victim’s role or responsibility is
crucial in determining his/her victimization. However, initially the explanation behind
the categorization of victims was turned down by the society as it was shifting the
blame of the criminal incident on the victims. But gradually it was well accepted as it
can make us learn how to keep away from the victimization. Also criminal justice
professionals can fix the punishment of the incident keeping in mind, the involvement
of victims in it.