If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

NCJ 9819

THE VICTIM AND HIS CRIMINAL - "VICTIMOLOGY"

by

Stephen Schafer
Department of Sociology-Anthropology
Northeastern University
Boston, Massachusetts

Submitted to

The president1s Commission on Law Enforcement

and Administration of Justice

1967
This paper is being reproduced by the president's

Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration

'of Justice as a reference document. The views

and findings contained herein are those of the

author and are not necessarily' endorsed by the

Connnission or its staff • .

 THE VICTI1,f. AND HIS CRIHINAL - II VICTIHOLOGYII •

(1) General perspectives.

~ These are introductory remarks to the stu~ of criminal­

victim relationships. Some call it IIvictimology", but it might be a

questionable title; it is doubtful whether denoting it a specified

kind of doctrine or science is justified, rather than accepting it as
an integral part of the general crime problem.

IIVictmology", a name by which this field of study_is des­

ignated, is a new appellation, but it does not refer to a new idea.
In fact, without using this name, and at least in its .essence,_ "vic_

. timology" is kno\'/n for centuries. As early as the "Holy Three of

Criminologyll, as they are called, Lombroso, Garofalo, and Ferri,- did

not omit touching upon the importance of criminal-victim relationships.

Lombroso, after he made some concessions to factors other than the ata­
vistic biological degeneration, made a hint to passionate criminals who
act· under the pressure of victim provoked emotions (1). Raffaele

GarOfalo called attention to victim behaviors which may be regarded as

provocation to criminal actions (2). Enrico Ferri, in' a somewhat in­
.direct reference, mentioned those "pseudo-criminals ll , who violate the
law because of the Ilinevitable necessity" of self-defense (3) 0 Gabriel
Tarde protested against IIlegislative mistakes" of neglecting the con­

sideration of motives·which may reveal significant interrelationships

bet"leen victim and his offender, and pointed to IIsome act of the vic­

tim's" (4). August Goll presented a numbel' of Shakespearean criminals

who were motivated to crime by their own victims (5); and Josef Kohler
 - 2 ­
too, referred to Shakespeare's dramas and described a few victim pre­
cipitated crimes l'rhich were' committed "against the special nature ll
(contra naturam sui generis) of the criminal (6). Franz von Liszt,
who devoted so much of his life to the search ofa comprehensive
criminal typology, recognized the "self-preserving desperate" offend­
ers who act in response to insulted reputation, refused love, shame,
and other victim provoked emotional pressures (7); and Seelig, too,
mentioned this type, as he called them, "crisis-criminals" (8).
The histor.y of criminal-victim r~lationships, ho~ever, has
always suffered from a lack of organized imagination. The subject
was treated only with allusions, vaguely, and with simplification;
the hints and implications of criminologists of the past do not throw
any clear light upon what criminal-victim relationship is really like.

The field of "victimology" has a long past, but it has not been devel­
oped from its embryonic state and did not evolve its dynamic possibil­
ities.
Responsibility for one's conduct is a -changing concept, and
its interpretation is a true mirror of. the social, cultural, and polit­
ical conditions of a given era. Each develo~ental station of human
history is reflected by the contemporary lal,'1sj the notion or criminal
responsibility (or liability) most often indicates the societal texture
of the society and the ideology of the ruling power structure. \'/ho is
responsible for what and how J is defined by law; and 1m., is nia~e by

man. When the victim or his family demanded pecuniary compensation,

rather than the death of the offender, this was due to the growing
desire for acquisition of private property, rather than "to the wear,y
 ill
.J I

I
'I

... 3
shape of the perpetual blood-feud. vfuen the victim was deprived of

his power to decide the penal consequences of crime, this "Tas due not

only to the greed of feudal barons who wanted to gain the victim's·

share of compensation for their own, but also to the emergence' or

state criminal justice. When the Soviet court practice tends to pun­

ish a murderer, \'/ho committed his crime out of jealousy ~ sharper than·
the offender· of an ordinary homicide, this is not only a reproach for"

a worthless emotion, but, at the same time, also a sO,rt 'of disregard

of the victim's responsibility for mobiliz~ng a criminal passion.

The interest in the criminal~victim relationship indicates"

that, again, the understanding of crime is passing through a new phase,

and, maybe, it signals the decline of. the objective and isolated, re-:-'

sponsibility of the offender. The birth of this part of the crime

problem seems to be prompted by the growing recognition of the demand

that criminal justice should not be used against some vague legal

phantoms and should not be satisfied by objectivized and formalistic

judgments. Criminal justice is for judging the dynamics· of' crime and

treating criminals as members of their group', the one of these is the

victim. The study of criminal-victim relatio.nships struggles for the

recognition of the role and re'sponsibility of the victim, ,mo is not

simply the cause of and reason for the criminal procedure,.but has

very often a major part to pl~ in the search for a materialistic jus­
tice and a functional anSl'ler to the crime problem.

In the structure of criminal law the criminal and his 'victim

refe!' to two distinct categories. However, as proposed by Hentig," "ex­

perience tells us that this is not all II and 'that "the r'elationships
 - 4­
between perpetrator and victim are much more intricate than the rough

distinctions of criminal law" (9).

(2) The victim in the past.
Social control in the earliest history of.mrurucind was in the
hands of the primitive man, a lonely individual, '''ho was left alone in
his struggle for existence. He had to take the law into his own hands;
moreover, he alone made the law, and he was the victim, the prosecutor
and t~e judge in one person, also he himself carried o~t the pun~shment

that took the form of revenge and aimed at deterrence and compensation.
In that part of the histor,y the criminal-victim relationships
mirrored the struggle for survival. Probably, not the idea of responsi­
bility, but security of his "social" pol"er and prevention of future

crtmes guided the victim to ruthless retaliation and aggressive~ ac­

quired.compensation. Attack was the defense against attack, and the
state of war bet,,,een criminal and his victim made the sufferer a doer
and converted criminals to victims •

.~> l~en the first primitive groups developed, the social control
.went· over to the hands of the kindred (this, and not some severe degree

or bloody nature o~ reveng·e explains the word "blood" in the term

Itblood-feud ll ) , and supra-familial or state controls were not· lmol'm.

Very often, the position of the individual victim was identified with
that of his family or tribe, and the victim himself l1'aS udissolved" in
the wholeness of the clan. Not an individual punished another individ­
ual, but families took revenge on families. By. this, the concept of
"collective responsibilityll. emerged, a type of liability that has
flourished even in our ~~entieth Century and resulted in the death of
 - 5­
millions.

This blood-revenge was stil1 a part of the struggle for

survival. In addition"to relatively minor crimes \·r.ithin the tribe or

clan, the important crime type of this era appeared against external

threats on part of one family against another one. As if it were the

scene of our modern international \I/Crld, both cl":i.minal (one tribe)

and the vic~im (another tribe) "Ianted to \'leaken or exterminate each "
other: II crime II was the violation of the· triba.l II international la\,/i,. "

The blood revenge tested the relations amo~g families.

The blood-feud might have been a sort of pioneer of the

responsibility laws. HOl·/ever, since it ,·tas informal and had no de~

fined conditions, it .cannot be regarded as a social institution. But,

as Ihering put it, II all la\'18 started "lith arbitraril1ess and revenge" (¥>.
At this developmental station of history, this punishment was not really
a response to the criminal's IIproduct-responsibility", but it app~ars as

an expression of social defense. In ?ther "lOrds, the attacker and his

family l'1ere made responsible for endangering the existence of the attacked

tribe, rather than for the IIproduct" (that is, the actual objective result)
of the attack.

As the material culture reached a level of higher development

and possessed a richer 'inventory of economic goods, these goods could be

equated with ph:rsical or mental hurt. Thus, a trend to''1ard composition

is a noticeable corollary of the social and economic evolution ~D The .

" \
delictual conditions started to change rold the s,ystem of responsibility

appears to be transformed: blood-feud is fading out and the physical re­

tribution was replaced by financial compensation. The crliainal and his

 - 6 ­
,vict:iJn introduced the "redemption of. revenge II (Loskauf del" Rache) and

submitted the judgment of guilt to negotiations. However, it was only

toward the end of the Biddle Ages that the concept of restitution be­

came closely related to that of punishment <;'Zl,

/
and ''las temporarily

merged in penal law.

In this period it was unconditionally assumed, that the

victim shoul~ seek revenge or satisfaction, and this was the only as­
pect of the criminal-victim relationships that gained recognition.
This IIcomposition" combined punishment with damages. This may indi­

cate that the p·enal law of ancient conununities, in l'lhich crimes lvere
met by restitution, was not a law of crimes, but a law' of torts. t
This ''las not any longer an expression of social defense, but
a response to the criminal's product-responsibility. Not the general
existential interest of the family, and not the criminal intent or
individunlguilt of the offender determined the range of composition,
but the crime-product; in other words the objective result of the of­

fense served as a guidance of the judgmento However, it was not en­

tirely-an undifferentiated product responsibility, and a tariff of the

victims made the distinctions. The amount of compensation varied

~ccording to the nature of the cr~ne and the age, rank, sex and pres­
tige of the injured party. A closer measuring of man t s financial
value became necessary (13). A social stratification of the victims

developed. Outlal'll'Y \lIas the: penal- consequence of the criminaJ.' s re­

luctance to pay. Thus, the criminal's risk was extreme: the loss of
his membership in his group meant the loss of 'his existence and pro~

tection. Without his group his life bec~e meaningless and ris~.

i
i

j
 - 7-
J However the golden age of the victim came to an end. vlheri

the central power in the communities grew strongerJ the community, or

better the king or the overlord, claimed a share from the compensation
given to the victim, as a commission for its trouble in bringing about

a reconciliation between the parties. The injured party's right to

this restitution grew less and less, and, after the dividing of the
Frankish Empire by the Treaty of Verdun, was gradually absorbed by
the fine which went to the state. As the state monopolized the inst~­

tution of punishment (l}()~

\
so the rights of the injured were slowly
.

separated from the penal law and damages becgme a special field of civ­
il law. f;- .
(3) Thehndi~dualistiC, universalistic, and supraupiversalistic
orientations.

J ~ The history of the political1y organized legal order is, in

fact, not much different from the histor,y of criminal liability or,
better, responsibility, and shows c.l08e connection with the history

of the victim. tfuen social· revenge replaced the private revenge or

blood-feud, and the socially controlled judicial administration of

law took away the order-making function from theindividuals or famil­

ial groups, this reflected developmental changes in the understanding

of responsibility and the position of the victim. f~ It was character­

istic to the IIGemeinschaftfl-type social structure that the personal

identification of the criminal and his victim was not a necessary part

of the criminal justice. Judging, crintinal conduct, victimization,

punishment ~ damages J all appeared impersot.1al of natu,re; also, responsi­

bility had no personal reference, most often the direct addressee of ..
the penal sanction had no ,causal nexa ".tith the injury or harm-pro­
 - t!"­

ducing result of the crime. It has been a long "lay from this undif­

ferentiated product-responsibility to the responsibility based on dif­

ferentiated guilt.; and, even if the modern 1a\,1 of genocide may remind

the superficial observer to the understanding of crime in a IIGemeiri­

schaftJ'-style (in fact, genocide is a crime against humanity, rather

than simply an existential attack against a familial group)., only the

offender's 4ifferentiated guilt can lead him to his punishme~t.

Responsibility laws and the position of the victim are dif­

ferent in the "Gemeinschaft"-type society tram those in the "Gesell­

schaft"':"type social structure, because in the latter the definitions

of crime and respon~ibility·are for the protection of a given social
order, its conditions, values and interests. The s.ystem of responsi­

bilities may be taken as a criminal- and victim-selecting strategy,

that reflects the philosophy and ideology of the given culture. 1Alhile
the "private criminal law" l'laS marked by an almost exclusive and domi­

nant role of the victim, in the crilninal law of the normative and 'or­
ganized social struc~ure the victim becrume almost entirely excluded
from the settlement of the criminal case. While in the II Gemeinschaft"­

societies crime was a viola.tion of the victim's interest·, in the IlGesell­

'schaft"-type structures crime is a disturbance of the society; and as a

result of that, now lithe unfortunate victim of criminality is habitually

ignored II (15).
~ However, in the individualistic atmosphere of the eighteenth

century, man demanded the right to pursue his own ends, to act independ­

ently, and to have his individuality respected by all. Thisdeveloped

the individualistic understanding of crime, and although at that time
 - 9 ­
this was a revolutionary change from the Hedieval arbitrariness of
the judges, it deprived the victim from his pOl'ler, rights, and po­
tential value of helping criminal justice. Formally the criminal
justice functioned for the protection of . t he victim's individual
rights, safety, and integrity, and the punishment ''las applied against
the individual guilt of the offender as adjusted to the wrong done
~ /(~~- .c <- \~l-- t L(
to the individual victim•. The victim's individuality, however, has '
been respected only to this extent, mixed with the protection of the
given social order. Criminal justice started -to intervene with a
formalistic and rather bureaucratic legal thinking, communal ideas
were just floating in the sphere of abstraction and communal interests
.­
could hardly find their way out from their fictional treatment. In
this system, where the boat of crimihal lat1' developed to be formally

overloaded ,·lith safeguards of individual freedom, one might expect

to see as \'1ell integrated participation of the victim. If this was
not really built into this individualistic-type structure, this might
be due to the state I s exclusive pos.s ession and control of criminal
justice. This system is individuali~tic, because in this criminal
justice the violator of public order is also an offender of an in­
. dividual victim.
Now this individualistic orientation seems to decline, and
some signs are heralding t~e development of a universalistic under­
standing of the crime problem. In the universalistic orientation the
normative organization and value structure .of the society carr,y deeper
. .
emphasis, and the relationship of the criminal and his victim to this
social organization and to other members of their group tend to be
 - 10 ­
one of the important determinants of the general perspectives of

judging crime. A universalistic criminology and criminal law tend

to direct attention to what might be tentatively called the criminal
and his victim r s "functional responsibility", rather than to the

isolated criminal action or conduct of the offender (16)0 The uni-,

versalistio approach to the crline problem apparently started to
recognize that the individualistic orientation might have been an en­
joy able and intoxicating understanding, but led only to a shre~ro con­

fusion of the functioning social forces that often ended up in stiff,

static, and formalistic judgments, encompassing only a rather narrow
scope of cr:Une.

The individualistic understanding of crime introduced the

mastery of abstractionl the rule of the paper, and lnade criminal jus­
tice" a mere interpretative machiner,y of the printed law: the blind­
folded goddess Justinia was impartial and knew the law ver,y well, but
her bandage deprived her of the sight of complex interactions, group
characteristics, rund social problems. So remained the criminal-victim
relationship, like many other aspects of crime, anonymous to hero The
universalistic orientation struggles against this ano~ity, and attempts
, to find the way out from the crisis of this incomplete understanding of
crime. It is not aimed at dissolving the individual again in the sea of
collectivity, and a universalistic approach to the crime problem is not
for making the individual a medium of anti-individualistic goals. How­
ever, it proposes the revision or rejuvenation of the concept of the
classic-isolated-individualistic guilt and a stronger emphasis on the
broader and more extensive concept of a functional responsibilityo
 - 11 -

In order to avoid misund~rstandings, it should be noted,

that the use of an extended criminal responsibility is strongly
spelled out by the totalitarian exaggeration of this universalistic
orientation. This might be called the suprauniversalistic interpre­
tation of the crime problem, where the primacy of a social or~ better,
political idea is placed not on~ over individual interests,but also

over the conventional group-interests of the society -- in other words,

over the interests of the "universe" 6 Thus, it offers- direct protec­

tion, care, and defense not so much to the individuals and not even to
the group, but to the idea itselfo The main objectives of this- supra­
_ universalistic extension of responsibility are the safeguard of the
ideology and, on the basis of its doctrines, the consideration of some
modern tariff of criminals and victims.
Since, here, the ruling ideology is the supreme issue of
criminal justice, the norms of responsibility and the evaluation of

criminal-victim relationships have to yield the supremacy of the gov­

-erning political idea. liThe Soviet distinction," writes Berman, "be­

tl'leen theft of personal and theft o~ state' property is probab~y an

essential feature of a socialist system" (17) 0 Not the act, but the
"thole man is tried, and he and his crime are considered in the context
of the ideological goals. Thus, the interpretation of responsibility
-is necessarily highly subjective. The doer-sufferer relationship is
viewed from the angle of the ideological doctrines, and responsibility
is \>leighed and dis~ributed by measuring the social value of the victims

or other crime targets.

The Buprauniversalistic understanding of crime is even more

 - 12 ­

markedly expressed in systems where the responsibility is projected

entirely to the judgment of the offender's personality. In such

systems even the victtm's position is dependent upon that, quite re­
gardless of his objective suffering and relationship with his criminal.
This distorted revival of the Lombrosian interpretation wished to sub­
mit the judgment of human conduct entirely to the supreme ideology and
intended to ' separate the offender from his objective relation to his
victim.
This approach attempt~d to find the "normative type" of the
criminal. Accordingly, the penal consequences of crirl1inal responsi­
bility would be decided and determined by the criminal's normatively
interwoven deviant personality•. Thi~ normative typology was designed
to assign the right responsibility to the right person. In other

words, according to this suprauniversalistic typology, for example,

capital punishment should not be inflicted necessarily on a person
who actual~ committed a murder, but on any individual who in view
of' his total personality should be regarded as a murderer, regardless
whether he corranitted a homicide, shoplifting, rape, or else. , Eric
Wolf (18) and George Dahm (19), the pioneer~ of this normative typology,
. proposed that the public view (Volksanschauung) cannot be- satisfied
with a simple single symptom (that is the criminal offense itself),
and both responsibility and criminal-victim relationship should be
judged on the basis of the whole personality of th~ criminal: the
ethically indifferent positivistic individualism should be replaced
py the phenomenological personalism.
There are profound differences in the historical development
 - 13 ­
as well as in the societal context and destination of the universal­
istic and suprauniversalistic orient.ations. While the suprauniversal­
istic interpretation tends to build up metaphysical victims, the uni­
versalistic orientation is aimed at a harmony among conflicting respon­
sibilities and attempts to see them in their functional operation.
The universalistic interpretation of crime and, within, the
revival of the victim,_ stands only at its beginnings. If the victim
and his relationships vuth his criminal are still neglected, this
might be due to a correctional ossificati~n t1here the hardening of
traditional deterrence and individualistic retribution patterns leaves
but little room for the victim's functional participation in the ad­
ministration of justice.. "Deterr.ence" and IIretribution" have had a
consistent and uninterrupted success for hundreds of years as the
most essential and dominant elements of all penal consequences, always
adjusted to the individualistically interpreted harm or injury of the
victim, and regardless whether they are named punishment, treatment,
rehabilitation, corr-ection, or something elseo The penaJ. systems of
our world are formally open to the'tn:lderstanding of the lIW1iverse",
but they do not S6am to be changed from be~g thorough~ riddled with
. individualistic security distinctions and they appear to remain.'.retri­

butive in their inner rhythm.

Nevertheless, gradually and slowly though, the universalistic
app~oach to the crime problem started to release the victim from his
exclusion from the administration of justice. The future points to
vie~dng crime in its structural and dynamic characteristics which in­
cludes the criminal-victim relationships and the redefinition. of the
 - 14 ­
responsibility concept.
(4) EarlY victim typologies.

Hans von Hentig might not have been the first who called
attention to the significance of the doer"';sufferer interactions, but
,
,f in the post-llfar period his pathfinding study made the most challenging
impact on the understanding of crime in terms of criminal-victim
:i
.I
relationships. He seemed to be impressed by Werfel l s ,·rell-known novel
j I

on lithe murdered one is guiltyll (2<», and suggested that in the long
chain of causative forces of crime the victim assumes the role of a
dete~inant. It may be the case that in the complex sociological and
psychological situation of crime the criminal is victimized.
Mendelsohn, hOl'lever, contends for the precedence and claims

the origin of the idea for himself (21). He refers to one of his
articles (22), published a decade before Hentig1s study, which led

him to the II gradual evolution tOl'lards the conception of Victimology".

He is the one who proposed the use of the term "victimDlogyll in order
to set up an independent field of stuQy, eventually a new discipline.

Hendelsohn _does not stand for the united and dynamic evaluation of

the crime situation, and he claims the separation of the IIt1'1O parallel
ways". He proposed ev.en a new terminology for this IIne\,T branch of

science II , and introduced terms like "victirnal" as an opposite to the

criminal, "victimityll as a counterpart of criminality, Ifpotential of

victimal receptivity" for the understanding of some in.dividual uncon­

scious aptitude for being victimized, etc. He is the one who suggested

a IIcentral institute of victimo10gy" , also "victimological clinicsl!, an

"international institute for victimological research in the United

------ ------------------- ,
 - 15 -
Nations", "international society of victimology" and the publication

of an II international reviet·r" dealing "lith victim problems.

Both Hentig and Mendelsohn attempted to set up victim
typologies, but both based their classification on speculation.
l-!endelsohn distinguished according to the division of guilt
between criminal and his victim. The correla.tion of culpability

between the victim and offender "-ras his focal factor around which he

gathered his vict:iJn types. He listed the "completely innocent victimll,

the "victim with minor guiltll, the "victim who is as guilty as the
offender B , the IIvictim ",ho is more guilty than the offender", the

"most guilty victim Jl , and the "simula.ting victim". In his views the

completely innocent victim is the "ideal ll suffer~r.

Hentig I 5 typology seems to be more elaborate, and he used

psychological, social, and biological facto~s in his search fo~ cate­

gories. In general" he distinguishes born victims from sociE;}ty-made

victims, and in his victim typology he classified the following thirteen

categories (23):
(1) "The young" victim, \'Iho is an obvious typ'~, oecause he

is \Oleak and unexperienced. Hentig suggested that since children do

not o\m property, they are largely exempt from being victims of crimes
for profit. If the young happens to be a girl, her Victimization is

well kno~m in sexual offenses~

(2) liThe female" is another general class of victims:

II another form of weakness ll • Younger females sometimes become the

victims of murder, after suffering sexual assault; older women become
victims of property crimes, being supposed to be wealthy. Since 'the
 - 16 ­
great majority of offenders belong to the male sex, there is no phYsiCal

balance betl'leen attack and defense.

(3) liThe old ll might be yet another preferred victim in crimes
against property. They are assumed to be \>lealthy, at the same time they
are weakened both physically and mentally. ." In the combination of
wealth and weaJmess lies the danger".

(4) liThe mentally defective and other mentally deranged II

persons refer to a large class of potential victims. It seems natural

that the insane, the alcoholic, the drug addict, the psYchopath, and
others suffering from any form of mental deficiency are handicapped in
their struggle against crimeo In Hentig's views the drug addict is
the prototype of the sufferer who is a doer.
(5) liThe :immigrants" are weakened by the difficulties

arising from their cultural conflicts. Hentig was not the first and
probably not the last who experienced that immigration is not simply a

change of a country or a continent, but it is a temporary reduction to

an extreme degree of helplessness in vital h~nan relations. Apart from

linguistic and cultural difficulties, the immigrant's conflict is often
caused by his poverty, and by being rejected by certain groups in the

receiving country. His competitive efficiency may develop almost

hostile attitudes. It takes many years often of painful experience for

the i.romigrant to adjust to the ne\'l technique of life.

(6) liThe minorities'll position is similar to that of the

immigrant s •
(7) liThe normal dull" are registered by Hentig as born vic­
tims -- similar in characteristic behavior to immigrants and minorities.
(8) liThe depressed" are psychological types of victims. They
 - 17 ~

can be characterized by feelings of inadequacy and hopelessness,

accompanied by a general lowering of physical and mental activity co

The crmnal has a ,<fay open to victimization.

(9) liThe acquisitive" is called by Hentig as "another

excellent vict:i.m1l D Desire is not only a motive of crime, but also a

way to become a victim 5 Criminal syndicates, rackets, g~blers,

confidence.men, and others are relieved in such cases from a certain

amount of effort ~ since the ess~ntials of their criminal attack are

already provided by the victim himself"

(10) liThe wanton" is also one of Hentigts types, though

he thinks of him as lIobscured and d:L"1llued by the rough generalization fl

of laws and social conventions.

(11) "The lonesome and the heartbroken" are also potential

victims 0 Both are reminiscent cif the II acquisitive II type, with the

difference that it is not the gain or profit, but companionship and

happiness th~L provide the focus of desire.

(12) "The tormentor'l features in family tragedies. The

alcoholic or psychotic father, l'1ho tortured his family and finally l'laS

killed by a member of his 0'111 fwuly -- is .Hentig I s example 0

(13) liThe blocked, exempted, and fightingll victims are

Hentig I s last· categories. He refers here to those who· :in a losing

situation cause self-injury by defensive moves, lIDO are hlaclanailed,

and who fight back. In contrast to the easy victims these are the

difficult victims.

In addition to He~delsohn and Hentig, Barnes and Teeters·

also mention a victim type, "the negligent or careless ll (24). They

 - 18 ­
refer to those who facilitate crime by their own careless or negligent

attitudes. Inadequately secured doors, windows left open, unlocked

cars, careless handling of furs or jel·relry, etc. pave the ''lay of the
offender. An FBI survey also reported careless or negligent banks

which made robberies easier (25). Reckless distinguished between

"reporting or non-reporting victimsII ; the "unwillingness" to report
is mention~d by him as a condition of the victim who fears the social

consequences of his reporting (26).

This abbreviated list of proposed victim-types might be
extended further but would not serve any teleological purpose. Personal

frustration has many forms and negligence can be split into several

types. Besides others, the lonesome, the heartbroken, the blocked may

refer to individual psychological situations, rather than to acceptable

representations of types of victims. Generally, most victim typologies
typif,y transient social and psychological situations, rather than

classified characteristics of victims. They hardly picture the constant

patte~ns of the victim's personal makeup _ The 'easy" victim and the

IIdifficult" victim appear according to the balance of fOl"ces in ,a given

criminal drama. The lonesome are not a permanent prey to the criminal,

only at the time l~hen they are lonely. The heartbroken are not always

smooth victims, only ''1hen they suffer a temporary disappointment. On

this basis hundreds of victim "types lf can be listed, all according to

momentary situational characteristics,_

HOl'lever, indeed there are biological types of victims, ,.,ho

appear constantly exposed to excess risks of becoming victims~of crime.
To be young,'to be old, or to be mentally defective, 'are not situations
 - 19 ­
but biological qualities which indicate a more or less lasting relative

weakness in defense against the forces of crime. Apart from the

biological victims, a typology of the criminal-victim relationships

that is, the patterns of relatively permanent social situations in
which they appear -- may be more promising to increase the defense of
those whose ~reakness cannot be compensated by their personal efforts,
to elucidate and explain characteristics of victimizations, to evaluate
victim risks and to accommodate crime control and social defense against
these risks, and to develop a distributive and universalistic type
rejuvenation of the responsibility concept.

After a number of speculative soundings (27), a few empirical

studies tried to come closer to the establishment of these victim-risks.

M~v~WpJfgang's stuQy on the patterns in crimdnal homicide

(28) involved 5BB cases in Philadelphia, as listed by the police between
194B and 1952. Race, sex and age differences, methods and weapons of
inflicting death, tenlporal and spatial patterns, alcohol and violence,

previous record, motives, interpersonal relationship between victim and

offender, victim precipitation and other aspects were submitted to his
research inquiry and revealed challenging results.
Wolfgang found that the distribution· of persons involved in
criminal homicide shows a sex ratio anIDng victims of about three males
to each female, and among offenders a ratio of nearly five to one. In
other '~rds, he found higher victim risk for the'female sex. His data
for age differences show that, in general, victims are older than
 - 20 ­

criminals and have a median age that is 3.2 years higher than that of

the offenders. Concerning methods and weapons of inflicting death,

stabbing leads 1'lolfgang t s list of frequency, followed by shooting and
beating. Exception appears, however, for ,~ite females who as
offenders use the pistol most frequently, then a butcher knife, and
lastly gas or poison to kill; and as victims, they are most likely
to be beaten or shot.

Concerning temporal patterns, t~olfgang found that more Negroes

are killed in September than any other month, Nay is the highest month

for whites, and August for females. Also, he found that most white
females ~rere killed inexplicably on Thursdays, all other groups on
Saturdays, and that "the most lethal , hours ll are between 8:00 PN and
2:00 AM. Wolfgang found the highway (public street, alley, or field)
as the most dangerous place for all categories, but the bedroom for
females.
Wolfgang found a significant association between violent
homicide and the presence of alcohol in the offender,. Among those

who ~il1ed "non-violentlyll, half had been drinking before the offense.

Also, there is a significant association between previous

arrest record "lith sex of both offenders and victims. Hare male vic­

tims had a previous arrest than female offenders; in general, 54 per

cent of the victims who had previous arrest record committed at least
one or more offenses against the person, and close to half of all the
victims had a previous record of one or another offense. With refer­
ence to motives, Wolfgang found that criminal homicides due to general
altercations are the most frequent type, domestic quarrels represent ­
 -2i­
the second largest category, and jealousy proved to be the third
strongest motive.

vlolfgang contributed an important body of kno\'lledge to the

stuqy of criminal-victim relationships. He analyzed homicide offend­

ers and homicide victims "as mutually interacting participants, ~d

found "both in the active, Ito kill', and in the passive, t to be

killed'". He suggested to study the IIdynamic relationship between
two or more persons caught up in a life drama", rather than to con­
clude from static, structural analyses where the criminal and his
victim appear as separate entities.

The important changes in English la,'" made by the Homicide

Act of 1957 through the virtual redefinition of the murder, prompted
Evelyn Gibson and S. Klein to report on the victims and offenders o£

murder Cases (29). They prepared an analyt~c survey of murders known

to the police in England and Wales from 1952 to 1960; in fact, it is

a purely statistical st.udy. In their findings female victims out­

numbered males, and this contradicts tl/olfgang' s findings.. Gibson and

Klein found the blunt instrument the most ·common and shooting the·

least common method of killing; this, again, is different from the

Philadelphia r~sults. Quarrels, violent r.age, and insal1.ity accounted

for most ·killings, but also jealous,y or intrigue and others were re­
corded among the motives, and this apparently supports Wolfgang's
findings. Gibson and Klein concluded, that uthos'e .convicted of capi­
tal murder are mainly persons who kill in pursuit of criminal activi­

ties ll •
Another ~npirica1 st4Qy came from Hunter Gil1ie~ who made
 ... 22 ­

'66 psychiatric examinations of persons accused of murder betl'leen 1953

and 1964 in the Glasgow area in Scotland (30).
lhre than ha.1f of his murderer population l'laS affected by

alcohol, also diagnosed as ps,ychotics, ps,ychopaths, or subnormala.

All of the 66 accused persons have shown frankness with which they
would give their histories; as Gillies said, "they were very honest
murderers". The majority of the group had previous criminal record,
but in no case appeared a charge for homicide. About one third of

them were married and living with spouse.

Gillies found but little anxiety over their own predicament
as persons accused of the most serious c~ime. He bitterly claimed,
that "armchair theorists are prone to making sweeping generalizations
about the roots of crime and about the effects of capital 'punishment,
but it is unrealistic to generalize; there are many sorts of murder

and many sorts of murderer II , and concluded that "because of the clumsy,;
chance and unpremeditated circumstances of most of the "killings, ••.
capital punishment could not be expected to be a credible deterrent".

Host of the deaths of the Vict~8 resUlted from sharp or blunt

instrument, and this finding is similar to Wolfgang f B and Gibson apd

Klein I S data. In Gillies I study the commonest motivation for the

murders was anger and the setting for the affairs was most often a
drunken quarrel, and here again there is not much deviation from
1101fgang's and Gibson and Klein's findings.

~tephen Schafer based the procedure of his research on the

inmate population of Florida in 1963, limited to those who have been
incarcerated for any of "the three major violent crimes", that is
 - 23 ­
(a) first and second degree murder, (b) aggravated assault, and

(c) armed and unarmed robbery" and burglary. He studied 721 cases:
165 for criminal homicide, 217 for aggravated assault, 306 for theft

"lith violence, and 33 for more than one of these crimes.

Generally, he had to experience, that the limited recording
of official data, and the traceable victims' reluctance in cooperation
decisively-affected the expected results. The absence of important
informations in the state and prison files should be tie first lesson
of this research, urging the courts, pen~ and correctional institutions,
'and State authorities (bureaus of prison, divisions of correction, etc.)
to the collection of more extensive and detailed data on both criminal
and his victim.

In addition to the experience of this general limitation,

his research resulted in 250 findings, not all independent ones and
not all statistically significant, but all developed directly from
the criminal-victtm relationships, and in many more supplementary ob­
servations without direct relevance to the victim's role in violent
crimes. The findings have been grouped according to the main themes

of investigation, that is: variations in sex differences; age sroups;

income, educational and occupational background; motivation, alcoholism,
drug addiction, and mental disturbance; previous criminal record; methods
of and attitudes in crime; and, also, combinations of the time and space
factors; all for both criminals and victims.
Here, in crimes with violence (criminal homicide, aggravated,
assault, and theft with violence) male offenders appeared in crime
seventeen times more often than females. However, the distribution
of victims to sexes proved much closer proportions, although the higher
 - 24 ­
frequency in victimizations, too, was indicated in the group of males.

Neverth~less, analysis of' the three major violent crimes, as

they were separate categories, has revealed the relative dominance of

females in bemg victims of criminal homicides Brtd aggravated assaults ,

but placed the males in the foreground of victimizations in thefts with

violence. In a search for causes one shoUld not overlook the essential

perspecti~es of these cr~neB, where robber,y and burglary are offenses

primarily for criminal profit, but criminal homicide and aggravated

-assault are most often based on emotional motives.

It has been found that the most frequently victimized age
groups for males are under 2l years and from ~l to 60 years I but females
are the victims in the highest frequency if 61 years of age and over.

Speculation may suggest the cause of physical weakness for the young,
fin~cial maturity for the other male age ~roup, and loneliness for
the aging female; but these findings are not well understood. In any

case, they seem to support Hentig's propositions.

Marriage itself did not prove to be a crime preventing factor,
moreover married offenders led the row of frequency. ~owever, my data

suggested, that the lower the number of children in the household of

the criminal at the time of crime, and even the lower the nwnber of

adults in the household, the' higher the chance of violent crime. Also,
viewed from the other end of the crime, the lower the number of children
in the household, the higher the chance of being victimized.

The family status of the victim proved to be significant in

its correlation with the sex of the criminal. It has been found, that

females commit violent crimes- against their spouse ~hree times more
 - 25 ­
often than males, and against their child nine times more often. At
the same t:ilne, it, 'has been revealed, that in absolute figures female

spouses are victim of violent crimes three times more often than male

spouses.
Generally, the spouse as a victim presented statistically

significant patterns. The aging criminal appeared with the' highest

relative f~equency of violent crimes against his spouse J also against

his child. Generally, the spouse seemed to be one who is more often
attacked than any other relation in the kinship.
A 8tatistical~ significant trend has been recognized in
the combination of age groups. This ShOl'lS most younger offenders
with profit aspirations, and most older ,criminals aspiring satisfaction
of their emotional pressure. The frequency of crimes against property

appears decreasing by moving from younger age group toward the old, ,
and the frequency of crimes against person appears increasing if moving
from the young tOl'lard the older age groups.
It has been a general observation, that criminals and their
victims do not show specific differenqes in educational background
and occupational categories. The nature of crimes with violence,
that most often indicates a personal drama, m~ explain the victimi­
zation in similar categories: the lawbreaking clash occurs dominantly
bet\'leen those l'1ho belong to the same or sWlar group. The proportion
of male and female victims sharply differed in almost all occupational
categories, but the clerical and sales occupation p~esented victims ,
of both sexes in proportions very close to each other. In other \~rdaJ

in this occupational category the ~isk-of being victimized is almost

 - '26 -

In the total of all violent criines the profit ,appeared as

the dominant motivation; nevertheless, this proved to be typical to
crimes against property, but the press~e of emotions resulted in most
criminal homicide and aggravated assault cases. Alcohol led to violent
crimes mainly in case of first offenders, and is relatively more frequent
on part ' of f.emales •.

The profit motivation seems to be rather vivid in younger age

groups, to 30 years of age, and after that its gradual '· deoline has been
observed while the violent criminal is getting older-, having been re­
placed by the motive of emotions. The motive of need (financial need),
too, is more typical to the younger age groups~

Emotions and alcohol proved to b~ the leaqing motives in

Violent crimes against the spouse, relatives, and -friends; ,however,
the profit seems to lead ' criminals to attacks against strangers (third
persons) •
Most criminals, l'mo committed crimes \d.th violence, have been
found in good physical and mental health. However, the pOorer the
physical health -lot the offender, the higher the frequency of his crimes
.. against the person; crimes for profit (against property) have been

'observed conmdtted mostly by offenders in good health.

Regarding the correlation between the age of the offender
and the resistance of the victim; it has been ohserved, that the higher
the age of the criminal, the lOl<1er the resistance of the victim,; Provo­
cation of crime on part of the victim occurred most often in cases,
where the criminal was in the age ' group of 21 to 30 years. Passivity
 - 27
of the victirn in the crinrlnal attacks has been found mostly in those
cases, where the offender belonged to the age group of 31 to 40 years.
The method of crime, also the time and space factors seemed
to play important roles in the criminal drama between the offender
and his victim, and their patterns, if established, may indicate risks
of victimization.

Combination of time "lith sex seemed to prove that male offend­

ers tend to comnut violent crtmes at night time, and the least risk
might be assumed regarding female criminals Who actin the evening
hours. Also, it has been observed that mostly the weekdays are pre­

ferred for violent crimes, at least on part of the male offenders:

female criminals commit moat of "t heir violent crimes on Sundays. The
winter and spring months are favored by male violent criminals, and_
the Fall by the females.
Frequent and intense contact of people on weekdaYs in d~­

light may explain the leading position of aggravated assault"s at that

time, and the rather "open opportunities that of thefts with violence.
Latter type also occul"ed in high pro~rtion' at night time', when the
relative peace in business districts and the darkness help the comission
.. of violent crimes against property. Peak time for criminal homicides
is in the evening. The high frequency of thefts ~rlth violence in the
, winter-months 'may find an explanation in the increased financial need
that could lead the decision to criminal alternatives.
Nainly strangers (third persons) are attacked at night time ,

and during the "Tinter months, but strangers are the victims of violent

crimes in the highest frequency in general. The evening hours refer to

 28 ­

the time of the day when the least violent crimes are committed. The

d~ of the week does not make much difference in crimes against strangers,
but the Saturday stands out in crimes against the spouse, mainly in the

Fall season.
Investigation of the space factor resulted in the strongest
relationship between thefts with violence and cities with a population
of 100,000 and over. This supports the popular belief regarding the
connection of crime and opportunity. Theft with violence found strong
relationship also with the business districts and main streets, and
this, again, agrees with the general common experience. Most criminal
homicide and aggravated assaults were committed in residential areas.
Significant relationships have been observed between violent thefts

and shops or stores, and between criminal homicide cases and houses or
apartments.
Night time crimes were committed mainly in big cities, and
the lowest risk could be seen with regards to crimes committed in small

communities in the evening hours. Also, as it appeared, the big city

night time crimes were located mainly in the residential areas. Violent
crimes against victims in the business districts have been recorded
mainly in 6aylight and in the winter months. - In terms of seasons, the
'business district appeared to be favored at any time, but the residential
areas mainly in the Fall.
It was not well understood, that criminal and victim had
their residence in a roughly equal distance from the spot of crime. Most
violent crimes were committed by the offender alope or with one criminal
partner, proportionately a higher frequency of criminal partnerships has
 - 29 ­
been observed in night time crimes. The lIindividuality" of the offender

found strong relationship with the winter months, and this again may

indicate the increased financial need as the motive of these crimes.

The victim-risk seemed to be the highest in cases of main
street-crimes, if the victim was alone, also if he was in a house or

apartment alone or in the companY of one. Rather low victim-risk

appeared for criminal homicide, if the victim had two or more persons
around him.' Most violent crimes against the spouse have been found

in residential areas, but most crimes against the offender's own child
in the suburb s •

Profit motive and the use of gun, as the method of crime,

have been observed in strong relationship; ~ext to that the relationship

between crimes committed Under the pressure of emotions and the use of a
cutting or stabbing instrument developed significance. The ' use of

skeleton keys or similar instruments did not appear in cases submitted

to this'research. Spouses seemed to be attacked mainly by using a

cutting or stabbing instrument. The use of poison proved to be negligible.

In the investigation of at.titudes, . passivity on ·part of the

victim appeared mainly in shooting attacks; next to that, however, the

victim's provocation prompted the use of a gun.

These are but some highlights 'o f the list of my findings which

m~ carr,y statistical significance.

I ~ sometimes a bit suspicious of criminologists who s~ that

their research \'rorks went always as they had planned them; mine never
did. This is why I am caught by the increasing tendency to conclude

~dth the often justified saying that more research is n~eded. Hentig,

•
 - 30 -
Mendelsohn, and the very few empirical researchers have set the stage

in encouraging fashion for the next steps in this field, but they could

not answer all the .questions; there is no simple answer to the problem of
victim-risks, distributive rewponsibility in the criminal-victim relation,

. ships, and new techniques in social defense. The .criminal-victim relation~

ship refers to a long and complex chain of factors, with several inter­
related strands. In fact, it is not only the ?riminal-victim relationship
but also the problem of delinquent-victim relationshipse. Much work has
to be done in order to see the real task of the law enforcement agencies
and the administration of justice, and the most powerful encouragement
to this work is not the constantly growing interest in this problem, but
·the fact that this problem remained a problem eve~ since it was posed as
such.
 - 31 -
FOOTNOTES :

(1) Gathered from several works of Cesare Lombroso, essentially

from the 5th edition of his Ltuomo delinguente (Torino,
1896)·and Delitti vecchi e de1itti nuovi (Torino, 1902)
(2) Raffaele Garofalo, Criminology, transl. by Robert Wyness Millar
(Boston, 1914), p. 373
(3) Enrico Ferri, Les Crimine1s dans llArt et las Litterature,
transl~ by Eugene Laurent, in French (Paris, 1902), p. 19

(4) Gabriel Tarde, Penal Philosophy, trans1. by R. Howell (Boston,

1912), p. 466
(5) August Goll, Verbrecher bei Shakespeare, transl. by Oswald
~;:1 Gerloff, in German, with the Foreword of Franz von Liszt
:.}
(stuttgart, without date, probably 1908)
(6) Josef Kohler, Verbrecher-Typen in Shakespeares Dramen (Berlin,
without date, probably 1903'and 1907)
(7) Franc von Liszt, strafrechtliche Aufsatze und Vortrage (Berlin,
1905) .
(8) Ernst Seelig, "Die Gliederung der Verbrecher ll , in Ernst Seelig
and Karl Weind1er, Die Typen der Kriminellen (Berlin,
1949). p. 6
Hans von Hentig, The Criminal & His Victim, Studies in the
SociobioloEY of Crime ~New Haven, 1948), p. 388

(10) R. Ihering, Geist des r'omischen Rechts (Lepizig, 1873), Vol. I,

p. 118.

(11) Marvin E. Wolfgang, "Victim Comp~nsation in Crimes of Personal

Violence ll , paper presented to the meetihgs of the American
. Society of Criminology (Montreal~ 1964), p. 2
(12) In German la\'/S the word "punishment!' (Strafe) first appeared
in sources of the fourteenth century; see Herman Conrad,
Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte (Karlsruhe, 1954), Vol. I, p. 69
(13) F. Beyerle, Gesetze der Longobarden (Weimar, 1947), p. 62
(14) Wolfgang Starke, Die Entschadigung des Verletzten (Freiburg,
1959), p. 1
(15) vlilliam Tallack, Re aration to the In ured and the Ri hts of
the Victim of Crime to Compensation London, 1900 , pp. ' 10-11

(16) SteplWn Schafer, "Correctional Rejuvenation of Restitution to

Victims of Crime,1I paper 'presented to tho meetings of the
American Society of Criminology (I.fontreal, 1964), pp. 7-11
 - 32 ­
(17) Harold J. Berman, Justice in the U.S.S.R. (revised ed., New York,
1963), p. 163
(18) Eric Wolf, Vom Wasan des Taters (Berlin, 1932)
(19) Georg Dahm, "Die Ernauerung dar Ehrenstrafrecht ll , Deutsch~
Juristenzeitung, 1934, I.
(20) Hentig, Opt cit., p. 384; Franz Werfel, Der Ermordete ist schuld
(21) B. Mendelsolm, liThe Origin of the Doctrine of Victimologyll,
Excerpta Criminologica, Vol. 3, No.3, May-June 1963,·
with. selected bibliography, wmong them reference to his
~published studies
(22) B. Hendelsohn, "Method to be used by counsel. for the defense
in the researches made into the personality of the
criminal II , Revue de Droit Penal et de Crimino1ogie,.
Aug-Oct. 1937, p.·8?7
(23) Hentig, OPe cit., pp. 404-438
(24) Harry Elmer Barnes and Negley K. Teeters, New Horizons in .
Criminology (Third ed., Englewood Cliffs, 1959),
pp. 595-596
(25) "Profile of a Bank Robber", without named author, FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin (Washington, D. G., Nov. 1965),
Vol. 34, No. 11, p. 22
(26) \'lalter C. Reckless, The· Crime Problem (Third ed., New York,
1961), p. 24­
(27)· Jules Simon, "Le consentement de la victime justifie-t-i1 les
Ibsions corpore11es?", Revue de Droit Penal et de
Crimino1ogie, 1933, pp. 457~476; Kahlil. Gibran, The
Prophet (New York, 1935), p. 45; Ernst Roesner, ItMOrder
und ihre Opfer", Monatschrift fUr Krirninologie und
Strafrechtsreform, Vol. 29, 1938, pp. 161-185, pp. 209-228;
R. TaJion, "Le consentement de la victime", Revue· de Droit
Penal et de Criminologie, 1951-52, pp. 323-342; Henri
Ellenberger, "Relations Psycho1ogiques entre Ie Criminel
et la Victiroe ll , Revue internationals de criminologie
at de police technique, 1954, pp. 103-121; E. Werner,
"Das Opfer des Mordes ll , Kriminalistik, 1956, pp. 2-5;
Erwin O. Smigel, "Public Attitudes toward Stealing as
Related to the .Size of the Victim Organization", American
Sociological Review, yol. 21, No.1, Februar,y 1956, .
pp. 320-327; W.M.E. Noach, "Het Schlachtoff-er en de
Strafrechtspraak", in \'1. P. J. Pompe and G. Th. Kempe,
editors, Strafrechtspraak, Criminologische Studi~n
(Assen, 1959), Vol. V, pp. 29-41; etc.
(28) Marvin E. Wolfgang, Patterns in Criminal Homicide (Philadelphia, 1958)
 ~ 33 ­
. i
(29) Evelyn Gibson and S. Klein; Murder, Home Office Studies in the
Causes of Delinquency' and the Treatment of Offenders, 4,
ID'ISO (london, 1961) ,

(30) Hunter Gillies, "Hurder in the 14fest of Scotland", British

Journ~ qf Pgychiatry, 1965, III, pp. 1087-1094

(.31) Stephen Schafer, "Criminal-Victim Relationships in Violent

Crimes~, unpublished research, sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and \llelfare, 1965.

~ ::::