Samenvatting Victimology (15/20)

VICTIMOLOGY
Samenvatting




Joren Brauwers
Academiejaar 2024-25

, H1: ORIGIN AND CONCEPTS
1. WHAT IS VICTIMOLOGY?
Victomology = The scientific study of the extent, nature, and causes of (criminal)
victimization, its consequences for the individuals involved, and societal
responses (particularly those of the police, criminal justice system, as well as
voluntary and welfare services (VWS)).
- So: Victimology is the scientific study of crime victims. It looks at how
people become victims, how they are affected by crime, and how
society and the justice system respond to them.
o It’s often considered a subdiscipline of several disciplines
▪ Psychiatry
▪ Law
▪ Social work
▪ + CRIMINOLOGY, criminologists have the greatest influence on the development of victimology

2. THE HISTORY
ORIGIN

LEOPOLD SZONDI: GENOTROPISM (1930S)
The first traces that we see in thinking about victims is from Leopold Szondi, with an UNTESTED THEORY (so don’t believe it)
called Genotropism - Theory: Reciprocal attraction of the same/similar recessive genes influencing human behavior
(instinct).

Genotropism means that people are unconsciously drawn to others who share similar hereditary traits… Szondi believed that
genetic factors influence our choices—like who we marry, befriend, or even come into conflict with.
- So why would you go for this person, and how come certain people become more or are more likely to become victims
of crimes???? → It has something to do with genes,
- However, this was NOT proven; BUT it led to thinking about victimization and people started asking questions:
why do people become victims? Is it a coincidence, or is there something behind it?
- WELL, there appears to be something behind that. NOT everyone had an equal opportunity to
become a victim; some are more likely to become a victim than others
- This is something that was confirmed by TED BUNDY (serial killer)
- He had 36 confirmed victims in 1970s → all of them were female, HE SELECTED
HIS VICTIMS (he had certain criteria), we call it Victim Selection → But there has
to be an opportunity
- Example: a serial killer is at a café, and people walk in so there is an
opportunity, BUT that does not mean that they kill everybody that
walks in…. They make a certain selection
- Ted Bundy claimed that he could identify a potential victim
by the way she walks down the street, the way she carries her
head, her body language, etc. (Holmes & Holmes, 2010).
- Research confirms that victims exhibit certain typical body language,
especially in the way they walk And psychopaths are more accurate in
recognizing potential victims (several studies point this out


FIRST MENTION OF “VICTIMOLOGY”
1947: Mendelsohn was the first person who mentioned “victimology” during the presentation of a paper… Mendelsohn is
considered the spiritual father of the victim movement. He said that we NEED to look at the role of victims, because at
that point in criminology the focus was always on the perpetrator and the crime BUT NEVER ON THE VICTIM, so he came
with the idea to change that whole narrative




1

,1948: First systematic investigation into crime victims by Von Hentig
- Von Hentig wrote a book called “the criminal and his Victim” (1948), he was the first to state that the VICTIM may
NOT be as NEUTRAL as we thought, and that they play an ACTIVE ROLE in the way that crime occurs
- The came with the idea of “victim proneness”, he made a classification (categorization) based on the
traits of victims… Where he stated that some people are more likely to become victims because of their
traits (Young, Old, Female, Drunken,…)
- Quote from is book: "The law considers certain results and the final moves which lead to them.
Here it makes a clear-cut distinction between the one who does and the one who suffers. Looking
into the genesis of the situation, in a considerable number of cases, we meet a victim who
consents tacitly, cooperates, conspires, or provokes. The victim is one of the causative elements
of crime” (p. 436).
- Conclusion: This is the first study within “victimology”, but in the beginning - they
focused on the “victim precipitation” (The victim plays an active role – either
intentionally or unintentionally- in starting, provoking or escalating the events that
lead to their victimization)
- However, in the 70’s there was a lot of critique on this way of thinking, and
they called it “victim blaming”

In the years that followed ‘50-’60, there were several studies
- (1) Theoretical studies (without empirical research): on victim types, the relationship between victim and offender,
and the role victims play in certain criminal phenomena.
- Mendolsohn (1956): he spoke of “victim culpability”, and he developed a typology related to the degree
of victim blame, creating six categories in which he classified victims depending on how much
responsibility they had for their own victimization
- 1) Completely innocent victim (child)
- …..
- 6) Most guilty victim (where the victim is the main cause of the crime)
- (2) Empirical studies (collecting data on how victims eventually contribute to crime): Murder, rape, theft, assault,
fraud, extortion,...)
- Wolfgang (1957): “victim precipitated criminal homicide”
- He was the first criminologist who conducted a REAL empirical research on victim precipitation,
and looked into 588 homicide cases in Philadelphia between 1948-1952)
- Found: He found that in 26% of homicides, the victim was the FIRST to engage violence
(used physical force or threats)
- Main message: Some victims, especially in violent crimes like homicide, may play an
active role in triggering the incident… He called it “victim precipitation” (aandeel van
het slachtoffer)
- Menachem Amir (1967): “Victim precipitated forcible rape”
- He applied the concept of victim precipitation – previously developed by Martin Wolfgang for
homicide – to the crime of rape
- Active 'contribution': accepting a drink from a stranger, riding with a stranger.
- Passive 'contribution': not reacting strongly enough to sexual advances.


THE ‘70S: PERIOD OF CRITIQUE
The following three individuals are considered the founders of victimology (the study of victimization), but their perspective
was not particularly victim-friendly. That’s why their work received a lot of criticism in the 1970s, mainly from feminist
scholars, for containing too much victim blaming.
First attention to the victim in Criminology (previously NO attention at all): was focused on the ROLE of the victim in the
OCCURRENCE of the crime
- Theoretical studies without EMPIRICAL BASIS (these are TYPOLOGIES of victims)
- Von Hentig (1948): Victim proneness Created a categorization based on the characteristics of the victim,
which, according to him, made them more likely to become a victim.




2

, - Mendelsohn (1956): Victim culpability Developed a typology related to the victim’s blame, dividing
victims into six categories based on the degree to which they were responsible for their own
victimization—ranging from completely innocent to fully guilty.
- FIRST empirical research
- Wolfgang (1957): Victim precipitation Analyzed 588 case files, in which he argued that in ¼ of the cases,
women themselves contributed to the fact that they were murdered—for example, by initiating the
attack.

Victim precipitation or victim-blaming? Especially in the 1970s, victim precipitation was increasingly seen as victim-blaming.
That is the reason why studies on victim precipitation (het aandeel van slachtoffers bij de totstandkoming van criminaliteit)
was declining… Victim preciptated crime, means that the victim has something to do with the way that the crime occurs (for
example is the first to attack), however now a days it is very sensitive because of the way that they “blame the victim”
- At the core of these pioneers: victims of crimes (robbery, rape, murder,..), this was their focus (not victims of
accidents or natural disasters)

HOWEVER Victim Precipitation research has contributed to two major criminological theories:
- (1) Lifestyle theory (Hindelang et al., 1978) = This theory was developed based on the results of a large-scale survey
study among victims, in which researchers examined what common characteristics the victims shared.
- Main finding: There is a connection between the likelihood of victimization and individual (differences in)
lifestyle activities (e.g., young people have different lifestyle activities than older people).
- Certain lifestyle activities lead to a higher level of exposure to risky situations at specific times and
places.
- Example: Young people often have a nightlife-oriented lifestyle → this increases the
likelihood of victimization related to going out (e.g., assaults at bars or parties).
- (2) Routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979) = Theory states that crime occurs when three elements come
together:
- (1) A motivated offender – someone with the intent to commit a criminal act.
- (2) A suitable target – attractive in terms of value, visibility, accessibility, or lack of protection.
- (3) The absence of capable guardianship – a lack of social control or supervision

1979: establishment of the World Society of Victimology

EVOLUTION
During ‘50s & ‘60s victimology was about VICTIM PRECIPITATION, and the focus was on VICTIMS OF CRIME (ex: robbery, murder,
rape,..), HOWEVER there was a gradual broadening during in 1970s of the research focus
- (1) Other kind of victims: war victims, victims of racism/discrimination,… (“We need to include OTHER categories of
victims when we study victimization”)
- (2) Other type of crime: Criminologists explore other crimes/phenomena: white-collar crime, environmental crime,...

Also within the WSV (World Society of Victimology), discussions about the research object of victimology.
- There was a DIFFERENCE and DISCUSSION between 2 camps within the WSV
- Camp 1: Scientific victimologist: We need to focus on the VICTIMS of CRIME, and not other types of victims
such as victims of natural disasters (tsunami, hurricane,…)
- Camp 2: Humanistic aid providers: Victimology had to focus on ALL types of victims
- This division among victimologist refers to the definition of victimology by the World Society of Victimology
- Where WSV started with looking at victims of crime, but gradually over time started including other types of
victims aswell
- Prominent debate in the 1970s-1980s, but largely disappeared by the late 1990s-2000s (due to
the fact that there was a UN Declaration).
- UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of
Power (1985)
- Unanimously adopted in the General Assembly.
- Objective: set minimum standards for states to meet in providing
assistance to victims. (we need something to help victims, states need to have victim funds,…)




3

, - It was a compromise, to also include VICTIMS of abuse of power
- Developed countries (western states, perspective on victimology): wanted the UN
declaration to focus solely on victims of crime.
- Developing countries (global south): They wanted to INCLUDE victims of abuse of
power, because they should have the same rights as the first category.
- The Global South has suffered from colonization, and so there was a debate in
the General Assembly: “if you want to have minimum standards for victims of
crime, we want the have minimum standards as well” (they wanted compensation
& the Western world to take responsibility for what they have done)
- Example:
- 11. Where public officials or other agents acting in an official
or quasi-official capacity have violated national criminal laws,
the victims should receive restitution from the State whose
officials or agents were responsible for the harm inflicted.
- 19. States should consider incorporating into national law
norms proscribing abuses of power and providing remedies
to victims of such abuses.
- At the end they included both, BUT much more provision for the first category than
for the second.
- (1) Victims of crime → Had much more provisions (regels in de UN verklaring)
- (2) Victims of abuse of power


EVOLUTION 1: FROM “PENAL” VICTIMOLOGY” TO “GENERAL VICTIMOLOGY”
As said before, victimology first focused ONLY on VICTIMS OF CRIME, and was therefore called PENAL victimology, but was
also called “interactionist victimology” (because they focused on the interaction between the perpetrator & the victim)
- There was also a LIMITATION on what they “called” a “victim”, where they need to have suffered a loss due to a
crime (significant decrease In well-being), and this loss needs to identifiable,…

HOWEVER the scope of VICTIMOLOGY changed – to GENERAL VICTIMOLOGY, where they started to INCLUDE everything…
There were NO more restrictions, everything that is related to harm & victims is the topic of victimology (victims of crime,
victims of natural disasters, victims of discrimination, victims of police violence, war victims,….), but was Also referred to as
“assistance-oriented victimology”. (The humanistic approach to help people in general)
- REASONS In favour of broadening
- (1) If victimology works on prevention and alleviation (stopzetten) of suffering, then there should be no
restrictions on the type of suffering (poverty, HIV,...)².
- (2) Artificial boundaries lead to priorities: one is worse than the other. (This should not be happening)
- REASONS against broadening
- (1) Loss of objectivity
- (2) Too broad research domain
- (3) Too political
- (4) Anyone can feel like a victim.
- …
- A variant was “Human Victimology” = They agree with general victimology but exclude accidents, natural disasters,
and "acts of God."

EVOLUTION 2: FROM MICRO TO MACRO VICTIMOLOGY
In the 1970s Victim surveys became very popular, which led to the SHIFT from Individual studies on victims of specific
crimes (studying individual cases) to examine large-scale patterns of victimization in society (due to the victim survey, we
have a inside in to volume of victims in our society, there socio-demographic characteristics,…)




4

,EVOLUTION 3: FROM THEORETICAL TO APPLIED VICTIMOLOGY
Early victimology studies were mostly theoretical… such as the victim precipitation studies, which looked for causal factors of
victimization and explanations for victimhood (who do some people become victims, and others don’t)
- However in the 1970s there was critique on the Victim precipitation → Which led to a NEW focus within victimology
- Helping and supporting victims: How can we support victims
- What services do they need?
- How can we give victims a voice in the justice system?
- What professionals do we need to involve in victimology: (psychiatric doctor & social worker also
have a huge role now in victimology,
- ….
- Rise of a political movement, evident in the nature of the research: from purely academic to a humanistic
movement (political activism).
- Rise of victims' rights movements (especially feminist activism in the 1970s)
- Research became more action-oriented, helping shape public policy
- ….

3. DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
Victim (UN Declaration): “Victims mean persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental
injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are
in violation of criminal laws, including those proscribing abuse of power”
- Easy explanation: Victims are people (alone or in a group) who have been harmed—physically, emotionally, mentally, or
financially—because someone broke the law (and they were the victim of it) or abused their power.
- Who is “the victim”? = key issue in victimology…
- But it’s very complicated, Because our idea of who is a “real” victim depends on:
- Morals: What we think is right or wrong
- Culture: Different countries see things differently
- Perception & judgment: Personal beliefs influence whether we feel someone is a “true” victim
- Example: Are prostitutes victims of Rape?
- Some people argue: Sex work can never be truly consensual, especially when done out of
poverty or because they are forced
- → the person is seen as a victim of rape.(Bv: Sweden, France,… )
- Others argue: If an adult chooses sex work freely (consent), they are not a victim
- → it's a form of work, not violence
Victimization = The event or process by which someone becomes a victim or harm is inflicted upon a victim.
- Easy explanation: This means the actual event or process where harm is done to a person.

Victimalization = The process in which society confers the status of a victim on the injured party.
- Easy explanation: This refers to the social process in which the harmed person is officially or publicly recognized as a
victim by society, the media, or the justice system. It's about being granted victim status

Devictimalization = This is the removal of victim status, even if harm occurred. It happens when society, courts, or others say:
“You’re not a victim anymore” → Easy explanation: You are no longer a victim (see the debate on prostitution)

Secondary victimization The notion that through inadequate or insufficient treatment of victims within the criminal justice system,
victims re-experience their victimization a second time. (having feelings of guilt, emotional distress or even physical distress)
- Easy explanation: Secondary victimization happens when a victim is hurt again — not by the criminal, but by the way
others (especially the police, courts, or medical staff) treat them after the crime.
- Example: Think of insensitive remarks during filing a police report. (“it was your own fault, you didn’t see that
coming?? come on!!”)
Repeated victimization Research suggests that prior victimization is a strong predictor of future victimization.
- Example 1, individuals who have been victims of theft are 9 times more likely to experience new victimization than
those who have never been victims (Spalek, 2006).
- Example 2: People who have been victims of sexual violence are 35 times more likely to experience new
victimization than those who have never been victims.




5

, H2: VICTIMOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES AND TYPOLOGIES
1. INTRODUCTION: SCIENCE AND HUMANISM
“Victimology is […] a non-academic program under which a hodgepodge of ideas, interests, ideologies and
research methods have been rather arbitrarily grouped […] and is characterized by a clash between two
equally desirable orientations to human suffering: the humanistic and the scientific.” (Cressey, 1992).
- Cressey (1992) says that victimology isn’t a clear or fully developed academic field. Instead, it’s a
mix of many different ideas, interests, and methods that have been grouped together without a
clear structure.
- As said before, after the criticism in the ‘70s, there was a discussion between 2 camps
- (1) Humanistic approach = They saw victimology as activism, a possibility for social action for all
kinds of victims (they wanted to help victims & change society)
- Problem: is more propagandistic (it lacks objectivity, and can be seen as too political)
- (2) Scientific approach = They saw victimology as an academic discipline (research and theories),
focused on victims of crime
- Problem = Academic approach is NOT sufficiently focused on social action (helping
victims or pushing for change in society)
- There has been a lot of discussion on the concept of “the victim”, (who counts as a victim). This had led
to several implications:
- A: Scope of the scientific discipline = The way we define “victim” shapes what victimology
studies. (only victims of crime or are we studying victims in a broader sense)
- B: Political discussion about interventions and legitimacy = debates about “who is a victim?”
affect laws, services, funding, and public opinion.
- The UN Declaration (1985) defines victims broadly — not just crime victims, but also
victims of abuse of power.
- C: Scientific character of Victimology: Is victimology truly a scientific discipline?
- Popper’s idea about science:
- According to philosopher Karl Popper, science moves forward when:
- (1) We identify a clear problem;
- (2) We test if existing theories or your theory can explain it;
- We try to find anything that disproves those theories
(falsification)
- (3) If the theories can’t explain a problem, we adjust or replace them
- That’s how scientific progress happens.
- If Victimology does NOT do that, it can not be seen as truly academic

2. THE POSITIVIST PERSPECTIVE
The positivist perspective in victimology sees victimization as something that can be studied scientifically.
- Their idea: “We can measure reality by looking at patterns & try to find an explanation for why they become a
victim. They want to come up with theories, based on data/measuring reality & looking for patterns”.
- This theory is used to predict when someone would become a victim, or at least help explain it
- Method: By looking at patterns & measuring the reality
- But: They need to have a clear idea of WHAT they are measuring, “what a victim is”
- → That’s the reason why the positivistic research approach is very connected to the CRIME
definition of victims.
- Quote from Miers (1989): "The identification of factors contributing to a non-random pattern of the victimization
process, a focus on interpersonal violent crimes, and a research interest in identifying victims who may have
contributed to their own victimization" (Miers, 1989: 3).
- Identification of risk patterns: the positivist approach looks for patterns in victimization — it assumes
that becoming a victim is not random. Instead, some people are more at risk because of certain factors
like lifestyle, behavior, or personal characteristics




6

, - Focused on interpersonal crime (robbery, murder, assault,…)
- Often looks at victim precipitation: (!!!!) cases where the victim may have contributed to the crime
- This view matched or corresponds to
- Concept of 'conservative' victimology (Karmen, 1990)
- Concept of 'conventional' victimology (Walklate, 1989)
- Concept of 'administrative' victimology (Davies et al., 2003).
- Common denominator (wat ze allemaal gemeenshcappelijk hebben) is the focus on ‘ORDINARY CRIME”

POSITIVISM : TWO CORE ASSUMPTIONS
Positivism in Victimology has 2 MAIN assumptions
- (1) Behavior patterns can be objectively identified and measured.
- This means that when certain events happen, like a fight, we can observe and describe typical
behaviors — (for example, people often raise their voices during a fight) These repeated behaviors
form patterns that can be studied scientifically
- Conclusion: Positivism focuses on facts, measurable data, and objective observations.
- Significant influence within victimology.
- Victim surveys.
- Lifestyle theory. (People in that neighborhood might be victims of theft
because we see a pattern)
- (2) Heavy emphasis on objectivity in knowledge production. (we need to clearly describe the situation and
conditions in which we see these patterns, and need to know what we are measuring & how)

WHAT ABOUT VICTIMS??
Positivism assumes that the idea of “victim” is not problematic or controversial.
• A victim is someone either recognized by criminal law (e.g., someone harmed by a crime) or clearly identified by
their suffering.
o Because of this, victims are seen as clearly measurable entities in research — we can count victims,
categorize them, and analyze their characteristics objectively.
• The positivist approach treats the concept of “victim” as fixed and clear-cut—This is called a static victim concept
o However
▪ What about power relations and the social processes that shape who is seen as a victim?
▪ What about social changes?

CONCLUSION
Positivistic victimology and victim surveys can provide snapshots of patterns/regularities of victimization.
- Core idea: They wanted to see if things repeat themselves, and if there is a pattern that can explain why people
become victims, and these patterns need to be observed & be measurable
- But: provide NO social/historical explanations of the emergence and changes of patterns across space
and time.
- No insight into irregularities in victimization (unusual or changing trends)
- No attention to the fact that the state and the criminal justice system can create new victims.
(by defining new types of crime)
- It ignores the private sphere (like family violence), focusing mostly on public, ‘ordinary’ crimes.

LINKED TO “POLITICAL CONSERVATISM ”
The positivist approach also as a POLITICAL impact, and is often linked to “Political conservatism”
- It supports the idea that the criminal justice system satisfies victims by punishing offenders — giving victims
a sense of justice through retribution.
- During the 1980s and 1990s, this approach was used to push for stricter punishments for criminals.




7

, - It also promotes a clear division between “good” victims and “bad” offenders,
emphasizing victimhood while excluding criminals.. (also linked to migration, look at
picture)
- It supports the idea that the conflict between offender and victim is removed from their
control and placed in the hands of the state and legal system.
- Reason: The victim’s personal suffering is seen as damage not only to the
individual but also to society’s order, the rule of law, and the community as a
whole

3. THE RADICAL PERSPECTIVE

There was a lot of CRITICISM on the positivistic approach on victimology, which led to a new
approach. So as a result of the criticism against positivistic victimology, a new perspective emerged
→ Radical perspective or Interpretative approach

DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED
Positivism Interpretative or radical approach
Reality CAN be measured: Assumes that within THE reality does NOT exist: There is such thing as
society, objective social facts can be observed. ONE reality, because there are several

There is only ONE reality, and we CAN measure it. Every reality is created by individuals by the way
Look into patterns and come up with a theory that they interpret it, or give meaning to it… We give
explain victimization meaning to our surrounding, what we are, who we
are, what we do…

So everybody has their own reality

Society influences its members. (the law determines Our actions are the result of our own interpretation
if you are a victim or not… Even if they don’t feel like of meaning, not external forces.
a victim)
it’s not because the law says that I am a victim, that I
need to behave as one.. ONLY if I identify myself as
a victim, then I AM A VICTIM

Quantitative data (statistics) Qualitative data (We need to understand the way
that people look at the world, so we need to focus
on their details, meaning, opinions,…→ listen to
individuals

Objectivity Subjective meaning

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THAT PERSPECTIVE
The RADICAL PERSPECTIVE emerged in the 1970s in response to several radical events worldwide
(Vietnam, civil rights, segregation,...).
- It builds on the work of Mendelsohn, who argued that victimology should focus on all
aspects of victimization. (not only victim of crime, also other types of victims: victims of
war, segregation,…)
- Common denominator (or core idea of this approach): we must examine how the state and legal systems
can produce victimization → the state creates its own victims, but how?
- Example USA: white people they could go everywhere, only the blacks were prohibited to go
into different buildings, transports,…)
- This approach also connects victimology to human rights, by recognizing that people
can be victimized by social injustice, political oppression, or institutional
discrimination — not just by individual criminals.




8

, OCCASION: PUBLICATION OF THE FIRST BRITSIH CRIME SURVEY 1983
First British Crime Survey (1983) launched to measure actual victimization beyond police data.
- During that period: a lot of social unrest in the UK and complaints/protests from ethnic minority groups about
'over' or 'under' policing.
- Overpolicing = police is looking with a certain focus on a specific ethnic community, so there are a lot of
control/patrols on a certain community (for example: blacks),
- Underpolicing = do not report certain incidents, because they occur in a certain ethnic community
- Message to that unrest: public concern about crime is not proportionate to the actual risk of becoming a victim of
crime.
- Politically exploited by suggesting that feelings of insecurity were irrational.
- The people in the minority said that they are afraid of crime, because there is a lot of thefts for
example. However, the government said that there is NO peak in statistics in that neighborhood,
BUT WHY NOT?? Because of underpolicing (when we call, you don’t come, we are left to
ourselves)
- Because of this debate the governments issued the crime survey, to measure
victimization (have you been a victim of a certain crime in a certain period, how many
times & did you report to the police, and what was your experience with the police)

LEFT REALISM IN CRIMINOLOGY
The radical perspective & This quest for an accurate victimology, with the use of
victim surveys, found quick resonance/support within LEFT REALISM in criminology
- It argued that we MUST take CRIME seriously
- They believe that crime is CAUSED by deep social inequalities,
created by:
- (1) Capitalism (economic inequality)
- (2) Patriarchy (gender-based inequality)
- But they believe in the possibility of SOCIAL CHANGES, with a DUAL approach
- Short term: Implement practical measures to reduce crime and protect vulnerable groups NOW
(improve policing, support victims,…)
- Long term: Social change to create a more equal, caring society to eliminate the root causes of
crime

THE RADICAL PERSPECTIVE
Core idea: Most crime is directed towards the poorest members of society, often living in proximity to those who commit
crimes, not the wealthiest. → Victim Surveys help show this clearly with data

What does RADICAL victimology focus on? Social programs for crime prevention, community-based strategies, and public
involvement. HOWEVER, it does NOT completely detach from positivistic victimology
- It doesn’t completely reject measurable data. (but uses interviews, to study the opinion, feelings,…)
- BUT it tries to combine objectivity (facts and patterns) with a human rights focus.
- → This is called "engaged victimology": not just studying victims, but also trying to help them.

In the ‘80s there was a POLITICAL focus SHIFT from SOLELY Crime prevention → Prevention of VICTIMIZATION
- Left and right Realists find COMMON GROUND, that they need to tackle crime TO prevent victimization
- However, the solutions that they had were very different

Early 2000s renewed call for radical victimology, because of the focus on STATECRIMES
- Victims of crimes committed by the state (Kauzlarich, 2001).
- (like unfair laws, police violence, or harmful government policies).
• Here, in contrast to the positivistic perspective, more attention is given to power relations, the relative invisibility
of certain forms of victimization. → Key ideas in RADICAL perspective
• They believe in a causal relationship between capitalism and victimhood.




9