critical victimology essay

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Victimology: Understanding Victims of Crime

Victimology for A-Level sociology students studying the crime and deviance option

Table of Contents

Last Updated on October 27, 2024 by Karl Thompson

Victimology is the study of who the victims of crime are, why they are victims, and what we can do about this.

Victimology is a relatively recent edition to the A-level sociology Crime and Deviance specification, and is mainly addressed through applying the sociological perspectives.

Victimology is the study of who becomes a victim of crime, why certain individuals are victimized, and what can be done to address victimization.

Victimology is a relatively new addition to the A-level Sociology Crime and Deviance specification, primarily approached through different sociological perspectives.

Patterns of Victimisation

The crime survey of england and wales (tcsew).

The largest victim survey in England and Wales is the (Telephone) Crime Survey of England and Wales. Formerly conducted face-to-face, it has been conducted by phone since the Covid-19 outbreak, surveying approximately 38,000 households per year.

The TCSEW indicates a year-on-year decline in crime victims over the last 20 years, except for cybercrime and fraud. Including these two crime types—which have only recently been tracked by the survey—reveals an increase in the overall crime rate in recent years.

The risk of being a victim varies by social group and crime type. Below is a summary:

• Social Class : Individuals in deprived areas are more likely to be victims of violent crime.
• Age : Younger people are generally at higher risk of victimization than older individuals.
• Ethnicity : Minority ethnic groups face a greater risk of hate crime than white individuals.
• Gender : Males are at greater risk of violent attacks, with about 70% of homicide victims being male. However, women are more likely to experience domestic violence, sexual violence, human trafficking, and rape in wartime. Trans individuals also face a higher risk of hate crime.
• Repeat Victimization : A small portion of people experience repeated victimization. According to the Crime Survey of England and Wales, 4% of individuals account for 44% of all crime victims in a year, while 60% of people experience no crime in a given year.

For a more detailed look at how patterns of victimisation vary by class, gender, age and ethnicity please see this post – Who Are the Victims of Crime?

Sociological Perspectives applied to Victimology

This discussion simplifies approaches to victimology by distinguishing between Positivist and Critical Victimology.

Positivist Victimology

Miers (1989) defines positivist victimology by three main features:

• Identifying the factors contributing to patterns of victimization.
• Focusing on interpersonal violent crimes.
• Examining how victims may contribute to their own victimization.

Early positivist studies explored “victim proneness,” aiming to identify the social and psychological traits that make some people more vulnerable. For example, Von Hentig (1948) identified 13 victim characteristics, such as being female, elderly, or “mentally subnormal,” implying that certain individuals may “invite” victimization based on who they are.

An example of positivist victimology is Marvin Wolfgang’s (1958) study of 588 homicides in Philadelphia, where he found that 26% involved “victim precipitation,” meaning the victim initiated the events that led to their own homicide, such as being the first to use violence.

Criticisms of Positivist Victimology

• It risks “victim-blaming.”
• Positivist approaches focus on traditional crimes and overlook corporate and environmental crime.
• They ignore broader structural factors, like poverty and powerlessness, that increase victimization risk.

Critical Victimology

Critical victimology is rooted in conflict theories such as Marxism and Feminism. From a critical perspective, the powerless are most vulnerable to victimization yet least likely to receive State acknowledgment (the “hierarchy of victimization”).

Critical victimology is rooted in conflict theories such as Marxism and Feminism. From a critical perspective, the powerless are most vulnerable to victimization yet least likely to receive state acknowledgment (the “hierarchy of victimization”).

Critical criminology emphasizes two elements: structural factors in victimization patterns and the state’s power to deny victim status to certain individuals.

• Structural Factors : Structural elements such as poverty and patriarchy increase vulnerability to victimization. For example, Marxists argue that poverty and inequality foster crime, making residents of poor areas more likely to be both criminals and crime victims. Feminists highlight how patriarchal structures perpetuate crimes against women, such as sex trafficking and domestic violence, making women more susceptible to sex-related crimes.
• Global Power Structures : Many people suffer harm at the hands of Western corporations or state crimes by Western governments. Yet, victims in distant locations rarely achieve justice. Bhopal and the drone wars are two notable examples.
• State Power and Victim Labeling : The state’s ability to apply or deny victim status can distort the extent of victimization. Critical criminologists argue that the state often sides with the powerful, failing to label exploitative and harmful acts as crimes. For instance, Tombs and Whyte (2007) found that employers’ health and safety violations, leading to thousands of worker deaths in the UK each year, are typically categorized as “industrial accidents,” leaving no one accountable and the victims unacknowledged.

From a feminist perspective, sexism in the criminal justice system discourages most victims of domestic violence and rape from coming forward. Those who do report often face victim-blaming in court, denying them formal victim status and justice.

Criticisms of Critical Victimology

• It may overlook how victims can sometimes contribute to their own victimization (e.g., by not securing their property).
• Realists argue that criminologists should focus on crime reduction rather than criticizing governments and police, as this may not be the most effective way to support victims of common crimes like street violence and burglary.

Relevance to A-level sociology

This material is mainly relevant to the Crime and Deviance module , usually taught as part of second year A-level sociology.

A combination of the main A-level text books were used to write this post.

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

4 thoughts on “Victimology: Understanding Victims of Crime”

what A level textbooks did you use? as i want to reference them in my University paper. if you could get back to me asap that would be fantastic

Yes- I thought that too- he’s got a picture of the Hillsborough victims instead!

Thanks for pointing that out, I will look into correcting it.

The photo of the Grenfell Tower is incorrect – where are the BAME people? The Guardian shows lots of muslim women, there are none in your photos.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Download Free PDF

Revisiting the ‘Ideal Victim’: Developments in Critical Victimology

In his influential 1986 paper, criminologist Nils Christie laid out the notion of the type of victim most likely to draw widespread public sympathy. This book presents a collection of essays which expand the focus and remit of victim studies, addressing key themes around race, gender, faith, ability, and age, while encompassing new and diverse issues. Examples include sex workers as victims of hate crimes, victims’ experiences of online fraud, and recognizing historic child sexual abuse victims in Ireland.

Related papers

Northern Ireland Law Quarterly, 2017

This paper offers a critique of the dominant role that victim centered discourse has come to occupy in debates about crime and criminal justice in Ireland. It argues that such a discourse works with an unacceptably simplistic and reductive notion of the term ‘victim’, it can lead to reforms that result in revictimisation rather than victim empowerment and it distorts the experiences of many crime victims for whom victimisation is inconvenient rather than traumatic.

International Review of Victimology, 2009

In Western languages those affected by crime are universally labelled as ‘victims’, meaning the sacrificed ones. According to the author this practice seems to originate from the association of the plight of victims with the suffering of Jesus Christ. In his view, the victim label, although eliciting compassion for victims, assigns to them a social role of passivity and forgiveness that they may increasingly find to be restraining. He analyses the narratives of eleven high-profile victims such as Natascha Kampusch, the couple McCann and Reemtsma to illustrate this thesis. The article continues with a critical review of biases deriving from the unreflexive adoption of the victim label in various schools of thought in victimology and criminal law. Finally, the author argues for the introduction of stronger procedural rights for crime victims in criminal trials and for a new focus within victimology on processes of victim labelling.

This is a book about victims of crime, survivors of abuse, the consequences of social harm, the nature of victimhood and the extent and impact of victimisation. It is a book concerned with the study of victims and victimisation, and is written from a critical perspective that seeks to: challenge taken-for-granted assumptions about the study of victimology; question key concepts and approaches to thinking about victims and survivors; critique ways of understanding the nature and extent of victimisation; and provide an alternative reading of many conventional approaches to responding to victims' needs and experiences. It is a book that provides students of criminology, criminal justice and victimology with an all-encompassing, in-depth critical analysis of the relationship between victims, crime and society. We hope it will become essential reading for anyone interested in understanding the social, political, economic and cultural context of victims in society, historically, contemporaneously and globally. Throughout its chapters the book addresses a number of critical questions including: Who are the victims of crime? How did the study of victims emerge? What is the nature, extent and impact of victimisation? What are the core perspectives that shape victimological thinking? How do media constructions influence our understanding of crime victims and victimisation? What is the relationship between social relations, politics, globalisation, the economy and structure and agency in generating, exacerbating and/or obfuscating forms of victimisation? What are the factors that drive unequal experiences of victimisation across social groups, geographical locations, jurisdictions and historical periods? How can victimisation be managed, prevented and/or responded to? Having studied and taught victimology for many years, it is our contention that these questions not only animate students' curiosity, and thus their criminological imagination, they also underpin important societal questions about the precise nature of crime, victimisation, harm and injustice in contemporary society. The study of victims and victimisation has converged with the discipline of criminology for many decades now. It is our view that over the next few decades victimology will become more contested as it continues to challenge at the heart of the study of crime and its control. Victimology has the potential to shape debates that affect the future landscape of victimisation and the ability and willingness of the state and its agencies to provide for victims of crime. Moreover, it has the capacity to challenge criminology to transform itself into a progressive social democratic discipline willing and able to provide a social blueprint for understanding and intervention. In order to explore those questions detailed above, and to bring alive what is after all a fast-moving (and exciting) area of academic study, the book is structured around three key central organising themes.

Temida, 2016

This article first discusses the key concepts of Nils Christie?s victimological-oriented work drawn from ?Conflicts as property? (1977) and ?The ideal victim? (1986). Using international criminal justice as an example, it demonstrates the enduring importance of Christie?s insights to victimology. Subsequently the paper offers a three-fold critique of Christie?s work. First, the stereotype of the ideal victim is confronted with the bodies of literature on the justice motive and the phenomenon of framing. Second, Christie?s views on the role of the state in ?Conflicts as Property? are discussed against the backdrop of libertarian and communitarian theories of political philosophy. Third, the notion that ?crime does not exist? is rebutted using a victimological perspective.

International Review of Victimology, 2008

Victimology was first proposed as a social science in the 1940s during a shift in interest in victims to gain a better understanding of crime. The early victimologists focused on the role that victims played in crime, which resulted in the concept that some victims contribute to, or precipitate, their victimisation. Later victimologists focused on the process of victimisation, including the treatment of victims in the criminal justice system. These and other theoretical perspectives have evolved from data obtained from various investigational techniques, such as victim surveys. As empirical knowledge has evolved so too has the push for victimology to be considered a social science. This paper canvases the debate on whether victimology is a social science. It proposes that victimology cannot be a social science unless victimologists apply a scientific method. This paper also argues that victimology, like other social sciences, cannot employ the pure scientific method associated with the natural sciences but victimologists should be empirical, theoretical and cumulative. As well, it gives an overview of several steps taken by victimologists to raise the status of their fledgling science, including establishing institutes and even proposing a single victim-centred theory. It concludes that victimology has not yet attained the status of a social science but also it is no longer just a sub-discipline of criminology, as it once stood accused.

This exploratory paper builds on the notion that victimhood is socially constructed and, as a result, conceptually fluid. Its epistemic authority therefore should be questioned. The conceptual challenges to victimhood are explored through the lenses of three interconnected disciplines: philosophy, politics, and law. The philosophical outlook highlights the moral ambiguities in the definition and labelling of victims, presenting the notions of victim's character and victim agency as highly problematic. Agency gives the discussion a political dimension, and this leads to the examination of the so-called political victim. The paper identifies 'status givers' as the primary political force behind victim recognition, and, based on that, two factors are suggested as influential in the process of recognition: affiliation and negative affiliation. Next, because of the philosophical moral dilemmas regarding suffering and victimisation and due to the influence of politics over the legal system, the notion of legal neutrality and clear justice to victims is put under scrutiny. By exploring and challenging some of the common orthodoxies about victimhood, the paper does not seek to deliver final conclusions, but rather lay additional groundwork for future research.

Notions of victimisation in the UK have undergone significant transformations in the past two decades. Once largely overlooked, the victim is now a far more strategic stakeholder in the British criminal justice system (CJS), inspiring a host of academic research, government policies and reports into best practice and victim satisfaction (Rock, 2002; Goodey, 2004). Myriad forms of victimisation have been officially recognised through new laws, particularly with regards to identity prejudice. The socially constructed nature of identity and its corresponding impact on legal engagement with victims and offenders provides an ample site for investigation to assess how value and validation shape the CJS’s response to specific types of victimisation. Addressing identity prejudice is the focus of both ‘hate crime’ legislation and the Equality Act 2010. 'Hate crimes' refers to acts motivated by racial, religious, sexual orientation, disability and transgender prejudice, addressing this in the offence/sentencing process (see Chakraborti and Garland, 2009). The Equality Act consolidates and/or replaces pre-existing equality and anti-discrimination laws pertaining to seven ‘protected characteristics’: race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, gender and age. The Act also extends protections afforded to people discriminated against because of their perceived or actual affiliation to someone with a protected characteristics. Carers of disabled people or partners/relatives of transsexual people are protected. Symbolically, addressing inequality or prejudice through such legislation promotes a broader message of intolerance to identity discrimination. However, while such measures appear progressive in theory, how applicable they are in practice may be impeded by social prejudices held toward historically marginalised groups. The notion of ‘vulnerability’ is central to understanding these legal developments. In 2001, Betsy Stanko wrote of a need for the CJS to address ‘targeted victimisation’ through a conceptual lens of vulnerability, rather than creating new ‘hate crimes’ based on a vaguely defined concepts of identity prejudice: ‘the social context of targeted violence recognises the special vulnerability of individuals because they are in some relational ‘disadvantage’ to the perpetrator without bracketing the kind of vulnerability into a category’ (2001: 318). Nonetheless, the legal incarnations which emerged firmly entrenched specified identity categories, diverting ensuing debates away from theorising vulnerability in favour of ascertaining the pros and cons of 'hate crime'. This chapter focuses on vulnerability, suggesting that factors exist which renders certain victims more vulnerable to victimisation but simultaneously impedes them from accessing ‘justice’ or recognition. It examines the experiences of, and responses to, victimisation encountered by two identifiable groups commonly perceived as vulnerable to victimisation: Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers (hereafter ‘Gypsies and Travellers’) and street-sleeping homeless people. The former constitute a legally recognised category, the latter do not. Gypsies and Travellers and street-sleeping homeless people may incur prejudice related to their use of space and how this is factored in the construction of their identities. For Gypsies and Travellers who live in mobile homes in communities formed upon large expanses of land, there is a visibility and vulnerability issue in that they are set apart from the domiciled norm; this may form a basis for their victimisation (James, 2007). For street-sleeping homeless people, the occupation of public spaces provides an exposure which, coupled with a generally negative social construction, may serve to heighten their vulnerability to victimisation (Fitzpatrick and Kennedy, 2000). The chapter explores the victimisation incurred by these groups which reinforces the undervalued position they occupy in both society and political discourses. It illustrates how, rather than being seen as more vulnerable and in need of protection, their identities have been devalued (Gypsies and Travellers) or deemed invalid (street-sleeping homeless people). Prioritised minority groups have achieved recognition through capitalisation on high-profile cases and/or grass roots activism; for those where no cause célèbre or pressure group exists, their marginalised status quo remains (Strolovitch, 2006). Therefore, the chapter concludes by suggesting an adoption of Stanko’s (2001) ‘targeted victimisation’ framework to marginalised and vulnerable groups in order to focus on enhanced levels of vulnerability rather than socially constructed identity when validating victims' experiences.

Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 2009

Experiências em Ensino de Ciências, 2017

TARİHÎ TÜRKÇE KUR’AN TERCÜMELERİ ÜZERİNE ARAŞTIRMALAR, 2024

Knowledge and Strategy, 1999

Revista Geotemas, v.14, e02415, 2024

Archaeoastronomy in Greece, 1994

La communautarisation de la défense européenne dans le contexte de la guerre en Ukraine, 2023

International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, 2011

Jurnal Ilmiah Ekonomi Islam, 2024

E3S Web of Conferences, 2018

Applied Sciences

Revista Observatório, 2016

International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2008

Archives of Dermatology, 2007

The Professional Medical Journal, 2010

Related topics

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• High School
• You don't have any recent items yet.
• You don't have any courses yet.
• You don't have any books yet.
• You don't have any Studylists yet.
• Information

Assignment 1 - Essay - Victimology

Victimology in context (cri2222), university of southern queensland.

Students also viewed

• Assignment - case study
• Script for CRI3321 presentation
• Part B - Career update
• V1-A2 1399 New Criteria -1
• Seminar assignments - Assignment 1
• Equity and Trusts Module 8 Creation of Express Trusts and the Three Certainties

Related documents

• Equity and Trusts Module 9 Trustees Duties, Powers, and Rights
• Equity and Trusts Module 10 Remedies for Breach of Trust
• Equity and Trusts Module 7 Resulting and Constructive Trusts
• Equity and Trusts Module 6 The Nature of Trusts
• Asthma - Patho profile
• 07 Charitable Trusts Updated

Preview text

Victimology, as a subfield of criminology, seeks to understand the role and experiences of victims in criminal incidents. It emerged in response to the acknowledgment that victims were often overlooked within the traditional framework of criminology, which focused primarily on the criminal and their actions. There are two main perspectives within Victimology: Positivist Victimology (PV) and Critical Victimology (CV). These approaches provide distinct theoretical frameworks for understanding the concept of victimhood, victimisation, and its implications for society. This essay will compare and contrast these two theories in light of their definitions of 'victim' and 'victimisation', research approaches, focus on social, political, and structural factors, understanding of power structures, and their influence on criminal justice policies. Positivist Victimology (PV) is derived from the principles of positivist criminology, which fundamentally adheres to the notion that behaviours, including criminal behaviours, can be empirically studied, and understood via a scientific method. It focuses on concrete, observable data, and quantifiable facts as the basis of understanding and explaining phenomena (Godfrey, 2018). In the context of victimisation, PV limits the definition of 'victim' to individuals exhibiting specific characteristics or behaviours that may enhance their susceptibility to become victims. For example, an individual frequently walking alone late at night in high-crime areas might be seen as more likely to be victimised due to their lifestyle or routine. This points to PV's belief that certain personal characteristics or behaviours create an environment conducive to victimisation (Strobl, 2010). By emphasising these individual-level factors, PV interprets victimisation as largely a consequence of personal actions and decisions. The person's lifestyle, choices, or even their personality traits are seen as contributors to their victimisation (Karmen, 1984; Christie, 1986). For instance, if an individual habitually indulges in risky behaviours, such as substance abuse or engaging with criminal elements, PV might argue that these actions have a direct link to their increased likelihood of becoming a victim. PV's approach inherently places a degree of responsibility for the crime on the victims themselves, often depicting them as contributors to their victimisation due to their risk factors. It is not uncommon for PV to suggest that the victim might have 'invited' the crime due to their behaviour, actions, or characteristics (Godfrey, 2018). For example, victims of burglary who left their doors unlocked might be perceived as having contributed to their own victimisation. Doerner (2012) highlights the significance of the victim's role in the occurrence and outcome of a crime, echoing the perspective of Positivist Victimology (PV). His work emphasises individual-level factors, such as lifestyle, behaviour, and personal choices, in understanding victimisation. This approach fits well with PV's tendency to focus on personal risk factors and the decisions of the victims that might have contributed to their victimisation. Doerner (2012) argues that understanding these factors can inform preventive strategies and interventions, which is a key objective of PV. However, it is important to mention that this view is often criticised, particularly by proponents of Critical Victimology (CV), for potentially veering towards victim-blaming by overemphasising individual-level factors at the expense of broader social, political, and structural contexts. Critical Victimology (CV), in contrast to Positivist Victimology (PV), expands the understanding of 'victims' and 'victimisation' beyond individual characteristics and behaviours. Drawing on a more sociological approach, CV places victims and their experiences of victimisation within wider socio- political contexts, arguing that these structural factors play a crucial role in victimisation (Rock, 2018). CV's understanding of 'victim' encompasses not just those who exhibit certain behaviours or lifestyles, but also those who are disadvantaged by social, economic, and political structures and power hierarchies. For example, CV might view poor individuals, members of marginalised

communities, or victims of systemic violence as victims due to their vulnerability in the face of broader structural issues (Rock, 2018). A central tenet of CV is its refusal to lay blame on victims for their victimisation. Unlike PV, which often attributes a portion of the responsibility for the crime to the victim's behaviour or actions, CV maintains that victims are primarily victims of systemic imbalances and societal inequalities. It positions victimisation as a symptom of wider societal problems, such as poverty, discrimination, or oppression (Walklate, 2007; Miers, 1990). By situating victimisation within the realm of broader socio-political structures, CV presents victims as subjects of social inequality, highlighting that their victimisation is not a result of their individual actions but a reflection of structural injustices. For instance, CV might argue that higher rates of victimisation in poor communities are not merely a result of the individuals' behaviours but a manifestation of systemic inequalities that create conditions conducive to crime and victimisation (Walklate, 2007). The perspective offered by CV offers a comprehensive understanding of the societal factors contributing to victimisation, pushing for systemic changes as a solution. It also calls for more empathy and understanding towards victims, stressing that they are often victims of systemic forces beyond their control. However, CV is often criticised for neglecting individual agency and responsibility, and the potential role of personal factors in victimisation. A key aspect of divergence between PV and CV stems from the social, political, and structural influences on victimisation. PV, as previously discussed, is centred around individual-level factors, focusing primarily on personal behaviours, lifestyles, and risk management. This perspective treats victimisation as an outcome of individual choices and actions and thus tends to overlook broader contextual influences (Strobl, 2010; Godfrey, 2018). For instance, PV might explain the high rates of victimisation among substance abusers by pointing to their individual risky behaviour rather than considering the socio-political factors that may have contributed to their substance abuse in the first place. While this approach provides important insights into how individual factors can contribute to victimisation, it also risks oversimplifying the complexities of victimisation by disregarding broader socio-political contexts. It potentially fails to address the systemic issues that often play a significant role in crime and victimisation. On the other hand, CV puts much emphasis on these broader contexts, arguing that societal structures and power hierarchies significantly contribute to victimisation. It approaches victimisation from a holistic perspective, considering not only the personal but also the social, political, and economic conditions that underlie crime (Rock, 2018). For example, CV might explain high crime rates in economically disadvantaged areas by pointing to systemic issues such as poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunities. CV argues that these socio- political factors create conditions conducive to crime, fostering a culture of victimisation that cannot be effectively addressed without tackling the root systemic causes. CV's comprehensive approach underscores the importance of socio-political contexts in understanding and addressing victimisation, arguing for broader systemic changes to prevent victimisation. It expands the scope of victimology beyond the individual, illuminating how larger societal structures often shape individual experiences of victimisation. Another point of contention is the interpretation of the theories with regards to power structures. Within the framework of PV, power structures are often marginalised in favour of a focus on

References Christie, N. (1986). The Ideal Victim. In E. Fattah (Ed.), From Crime Policy to Victim Policy (pp. 17-30). Palgrave Macmillan. Doerner, W. G., & Lab, S. P. (2011). Victimology (6th ed.). Anderson Publishing. Fattah, E. A. (1991). Understanding criminal victimization. Scarborough, Ont. Prentice-Hall Canada. Godfrey, B. (2018). Setting the scene: A question of history. In S. Walklate (Ed.), Handbook of victims and victimology (2nd ed., pp. 13-29). Routledge. Karmen, A. (1984). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75(1), 1-22. Miers, D. (1990). Positivist victimology: A critique. Part 1. International Review of Victimology, 1(3), 219-233. Rock, P. (2018). Theoretical perspectives on victimisation. In S. Walklate (Ed.), Handbook of victims and victimology (2nd ed., pp. 13-29). Routledge. Spalek, B. (2017). Victimology and Psychological Traumatology. In Crime Victims: Theory, Policy & Practice (2 ed.) (pp. 59-77). Palgrave: UK. Strobl, R. (2010). Becoming a victim. In S. G. Shoham, P. Knepper, & M. Kett, International Handbook of Victimology (pp. 3-26). CRC Press. Walklate, S. (2007). Handbook of victims and victimology. Willan Publishing.

• Multiple Choice

Course : Victimology in Context (CRI2222)

University : university of southern queensland.

• More from: Victimology in Context CRI2222 University of Southern Queensland 3   Documents Go to course

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Criminology — Discussion About Victimology And How It Has Developed Since The 1990S To Now

Discussion About Victimology and How It Has Developed since The 1990s to Now

• Categories: Criminology Research Scientology

About this sample

Words: 2800 |

14 min read

Published: Jan 21, 2020

Words: 2800 | Pages: 6 | 14 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, historical overview, victim precipitation, lifestyle model, routine activity approach, works cited.

• Karmen, A. (2016). Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. Cengage Learning.
• Mawby, R. I. (2007). Victimology: A Text/Reader. Sage Publications.
• Von Hentig, H. (1948). The Criminal and his Victim: Studies in the Sociobiology of Crime. Yale University Press.
• Daly, K. (2017). Feminist criminology. Routledge.
• Dignan, J. (2018). Understanding Victims and Restorative Justice. Routledge.
• Walklate, S. (2004). Gender and Crime: An Introduction. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Hall, N. (2018). Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. Springer.
• Roberts, A. R., & Yeager, K. R. (2019). Evidence-Based Victimology: Research, Theory, and Practice. Routledge.
• Karmen, A. (2013). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Homicide Studies. (journal) Sage Publications.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment Education Religion

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 777 words

3 pages / 1204 words

2 pages / 937 words

1 pages / 318 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Criminology

Crime, an omnipresent social phenomenon, has long captivated the minds of scholars and thinkers. Its pervasive nature and the myriad forms it takes have led to the development of diverse criminological theories, each attempting [...]

Braithwaite, John. (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge University Press.Frailing, K., & Harper, G. (2016). Crime and Criminal Justice in America. Sage Publications.Friedrichs, D. O. (2009). Trusted Criminals: White [...]

When we delve into the world of deviance through the lens of conflict theory, we find ourselves navigating a complex interplay between social structures, power dynamics, and human behavior. Conflict theory posits that society is [...]

Jeffrey Dahmer, also known as the Milwaukee Cannibal or the Milwaukee Monster, was an American serial killer and sex offender who committed the heinous acts of rape, murder, and dismemberment of 17 men and boys between 1978 and [...]

What drives criminals to do what they do? Do environmental factors have a big impact? And are the police good enough at reporting it clearly for the rest of society to understand criminals and crime in their own communities [...]

Biological/Individual Positivism was developed as a theoretical approach to criminology in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and was established by key figures Cesare Lombroso, Enrico Ferri, and Raffaele Garofalo. These [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free