Victimization theories explain why certain people or groups are more likely to

become victims of crime. These theories look at different factors, like lifestyle,
daily activities, or societal issues, to understand victimization.

The textbook, Criminology by Larry J. Segal gives us four major theories on victimology. Of
course, these theories are not inferring right and wrong, they are establishing cause and effect.
They do not suggest, 'as the victim did x, therefore the victim deserved it.'

The approaches allow experts to devise plans to lower the victimization

rate of those who are disproportionately at risk. Victimology is essential to
criminology because a victim is needed for a crime to occur.
Victimization can be defined as the outcome of an individual or institution’s
intentional action to exploit, oppress, or harm someone else. It also includes
destroying or illegally acquiring someone else’s property or possessions. These
actions can cause psychological, emotional, physical, sexual, or economic harm
to the victim.

Criminologists began to study a victim’s relation to crime to counter criminal

behavior and help victims cope afterward. These studies have helped
criminologists realize the importance of a victim’s role in a crime.

Lifestyle-Exposure Theory
The Lifestyle-Exposure Theory in Victimology, developed in the late 20th
century, notably by criminologists Michael Hindelang, Michael Gottfredson,
and James Garofalo in their seminal work “Victims of Personal Crime: An
Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization” (1978), provides
a comprehensive framework for understanding how an individual’s lifestyle
can influence their risk of becoming a victim of crime. Central to this theory
is the notion that daily activities and behavioral patterns significantly affect
one’s exposure to potential offenders. The theory posits that individuals who
engage in high-risk lifestyles or activities are more likely to encounter
situations where victimization can occur.

Diverging from earlier victimological perspectives, the Lifestyle-Exposure

Theory focuses on the situational aspects of victimization rather than
characteristics inherent to the victim. Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo
suggest that risk is not uniformly distributed across all populations but is
instead contingent upon how one’s lifestyle intersects with opportunities for
crime. For instance, certain behaviors, such as frequenting late-night
 establishments or engaging in illegal activities, inherently increase the
likelihood of encountering criminal elements. Similarly, occupations or
hobbies that involve higher levels of public interaction or valuable assets can
also elevate risk.

By highlighting the role of lifestyle in victimization, this theory, as outlined in

Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo’s work, underscores the importance of
situational awareness and personal choices in understanding crime patterns
and victim profiles. Their research has been influential in shaping
contemporary understandings of victimization, emphasizing the dynamic
interplay between individual lifestyle choices and the risk of becoming a
victim of crime.

Application and Examples

The practical application of the Lifestyle-Exposure Theory in victimology is
extensive, influencing how law enforcement, policymakers, and social
scientists approach crime prevention and victim support.

Examples of lifestyle choices that may raise one’s risk of victimization

include:

 Walking alone at night.

 Living in the “bad” part of town.
 Being promiscuous.
 Drinking in excess.
 Doing drugs.
 Associating with felons.

For instance, this theory has been instrumental in shaping crime prevention
strategies. Understanding that certain lifestyles are more susceptible to
specific types of crime, police forces and community organizations can tailor
their prevention efforts more effectively. Nightlife districts, known for higher
crime rates, may see increased police patrols or campaigns promoting safe
behaviors like traveling in groups or avoiding poorly lit areas.

In social policy, the theory has informed the development of targeted

interventions aimed at high-risk groups. Programs designed for youth at risk
of gang involvement, for example, focus on altering lifestyles that expose
them to criminal elements by providing alternative social activities and
support networks.
In the realm of personal security, the theory has driven awareness
campaigns highlighting how individual choices can mitigate or increase risk.
These campaigns often educate the public on safe practices, such as secure
online behavior to prevent cybercrimes or advice for securing personal
belongings in public spaces.

Real-world examples of the theory in action include studies linking nightlife

activities with increased risks of violent victimization, or research showing
how certain professions, like taxi driving or retail, have higher rates of
occupational victimization due to their high exposure to the public and cash
transactions. Another application can be seen in urban planning, where the
design of safer public spaces considers the lifestyle patterns of different
community members, aiming to reduce opportunities for victimization.

These applications underscore the significance of the Lifestyle-Exposure

Theory in understanding and addressing victimization, highlighting the
dynamic interplay between individual lifestyles and environmental factors in
shaping vulnerability to crime.

"Some criminologists believe people may become crime victims because their lifestyle increases
their exposure to criminal offenders."

Examples:

"Single women who drink frequently and have a prior history of being sexually assaulted are most likely
to be assaulted on [college] campus."

"People who belong to groups that have an extremely risky life—homeless, runaways, drug users—are
at high risk for victimization; the more time they are exposed to street life, the greater their risk of
becoming crime victims."

Go to top

Routine Activities Theory

Fundamentals of the Theory

The Routine Activities Theory, established by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus
Felson in the late 1970s, offers a lens to understand crime by examining
the conditions under which it occurs rather than focusing on the
characteristics of offenders or victims. This theory is grounded in three core
elements: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a
capable guardian. According to this perspective, crimes are more likely to
occur when these three elements converge in space and time.

This theory diverges from traditional criminological models by

emphasizing situational factors over dispositional factors in crime causation.
It posits that crime is a product of everyday activities and routines, which
shape opportunities for victimization. The routine activities of individuals,
therefore, inadvertently create situations where the paths of potential
victims and offenders intersect.

An integral aspect of this theory is the concept of a “capable guardian.” This

role can be filled by anything that discourages crime, such as police
presence, security systems, or even social norms and community
vigilance. The theory suggests that the presence or absence of capable
guardians is a critical determinant in whether a crime will be committed.

Implications and Case Studies

The Routine Activities Theory has profound implications in criminology,
particularly in crime prevention and policy-making. By focusing on situational
prevention, this theory guides strategies that aim to disrupt the convergence
of the three elements necessary for a crime to occur. This approach has led
to the development of various crime prevention techniques, including
environmental design, increased surveillance, and community-based
strategies.

For instance, the implementation of neighborhood watch

programs exemplifies the application of this theory. By increasing the
presence of capable guardians in the form of vigilant community members,
these programs aim to deter potential offenders. Similarly, urban planning
that incorporates crime prevention through environmental design
(CPTED) principles, such as improved lighting and natural surveillance, also
draws from this theory.

Case studies demonstrating the efficacy of the Routine Activities Theory

include the reduction of car thefts through improved vehicle security
systems, illustrating the removal of suitable targets. Another example is
the decrease in burglary rates following increased police patrolling in high-
crime areas, showcasing the impact of enhancing capable guardianship.

In the realm of cybercrime, the theory has been adapted to understand

phenomena like online fraud. Here, the absence of physical guardians makes
certain online activities riskier, and initiatives to educate the public about
safe online practices are in line with the theory’s emphasis on prevention.
Overall, the Routine Activities Theory has played a crucial role in shaping
modern criminological thought and practice. By highlighting the significance
of routine activities in creating opportunities for crime, it has influenced a
wide range of crime prevention strategies, emphasizing the importance of
altering environmental factors and daily routines to reduce the risk of
victimization.

Routine Activities Theory

"...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 American lifestyle:"

1. "The availability of suitable targets, such as homes containing easily saleable goods."
2. "The absence of capable guardians, such as police, homeowners, neighbors, friends, and relatives."
"Even the most desperate criminal might hesitate to attack a well-defended target." "[A]n undefended
yet attractive target (not referring to sexual) becomes an irresistible objective for motivated criminals."
3. "The presence of motivated offenders, such as a large number of unemployed teenagers."

Go to top

Victim Precipitation Theory

Victim Precipitation Theory, which emerged as a significant concept in
criminology and victimology in the mid-20th century, was notably developed
by criminologists like Marvin Wolfgang in his influential study “Victim
Precipitated Criminal Homicide” (1957). This theory suggests that victims
may play an active role in the criminal process, potentially initiating the
chain of events that lead to their victimization. The development of this
theory was aimed at better understanding the dynamics of certain crimes,
especially those involving personal and interpersonal violence, such as
assault or homicide.

The theory initially focused on the idea that victims could contribute to their
victimization through their behavior, characteristics, or interactions with the
offender. It implied that certain actions or attributes of victims, such
as provocation or aggression, might trigger or escalate a conflict that leads
to a crime. This approach was exemplified in Wolfgang’s work, where he
examined instances of victim-precipitated homicides, analyzing how victim
behavior may have played a role in the escalation to lethal violence.

Historically, Victim Precipitation Theory marked a shift in focus within

criminological research. By moving some of the focus from the offender to
the victim, it suggested a more interactive understanding of crime causation.
Researchers like Wolfgang encouraged a consideration of the complex
interplay between victim and offender, rather than viewing criminal acts as
solely the result of the perpetrator’s actions. This perspective
was groundbreaking at the time, as it expanded the scope of criminological
inquiry to include the role and impact of the victim’s actions in the context of
criminal events.

Criticism and Modern Perspectives

Despite its historical significance, Victim Precipitation Theory has faced
significant criticism, particularly concerning the notion of “victim
blaming.” The primary critique is that the theory can be interpreted as
shifting the blame for the crime onto the victim, suggesting that the victim’s
actions or characteristics justify or excuse the offender’s criminal behavior.
This perspective has been particularly contentious in cases of sexual assault
and domestic violence, where it can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and
discourage victims from coming forward.

Modern perspectives on victimology and criminology have sought to address

these concerns by reevaluating the theory within a more nuanced and
victim-sensitive framework. Contemporary scholars emphasize that
understanding the interactions between victims and offenders is vital, but
this should not lead to blaming victims for the crimes committed against
them. The focus has shifted to examining how societal attitudes, cultural
norms, and systemic issues might contribute to victimization without
implying victim fault.

Moreover, current research in this area often incorporates an intersectional

approach, considering how factors such as gender, race, socioeconomic
status, and other social identities intersect to impact experiences of
victimization and the criminal justice process. This approach acknowledges
the complexity of victim-offender dynamics without oversimplifying or
moralizing the victim’s role.

In practice, while the concept of victim precipitation is still a topic of

academic discussion, it is approached with caution and a deeper
understanding of its implications. The modern interpretation strives to
balance the exploration of victim-offender interactions with a strong stance
against victim blaming, ensuring that the focus remains on prevention,
support, and justice for victims.

"According to victim precipitation theory, some people may actually initiate the confrontation that
eventually leads to their injury or death."

Examples:
 "In 1971, Menachem Amir suggested female rape victims often contribute to their attacks by... pursuing
a relationship with the rapist."

"A woman may become the target of domestic violence when she increases her job status and her
success results in a backlash from a jealous spouse or partner."

Victim Impulsivity:

"A number of research efforts have found that both male and female victims have an impulsive
personality that might render them abrasive and obnoxious, characteristics that might incite
victimization."

"It is possible that impulsive people are not only antagonistic and therefore more likely to become
targets, but they also are risk takers who get involved in dangerous situations and fail to take
precaution

Deviant Place Theory

"The more often victims visit dangerous places, the more likely they will be exposed to crime and
violence. 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 behavior or lifestyle."

This theory of victimology also proposes that safety measures taken in

dangerous areas may be of little to no use since it’s the area’s demographic
that increases victimization rather than the victim’s lifestyle choices. If an
individual lives in a deviant area, the only way to lower their chance of being
a victim of a crime is to leave the deviant and dangerous neighborhood for
one that is less deviant and has a lower crime rate.