Mendelsohn had six victimization categories:
• Completely innocent victim – no provocative behavior • Victim with minor guilt – the victim unintentionally places him or herself in a compromising situation
• Victim as guilty as offender – the victim engages in a crime and was hurt • Victim more guilty than offender – the victim promotes or initiates the act • Most guilty victim – the victim starts off as offender and is hurt in return • Imaginary victim – someone who pretends to be a victim (Mendelsohn, 1956)
Hans von Hentig
In 1941, Hans von Hentig began to ask about the victims of crime: Were these people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time or do certain characteristics make a person more likely to be a victim? What made a victim a victim? These types of questions were central to the development of the field of victimology.
The answer for von Hentig was the victim-criminal dyad:Who the victim is initially is not always clear when you just look at the outcome of the crime. He contended that when you look closely at the criminal-victim relationship, you can see that the victim played a significant role in the end result of the crime. Von Hentig proposed characteristics that were associated with victims, including either being young or old, female, immigrate, minority, being lonely and depressed, and mental disabilities. His work, as well as that of Mendelsohn, continues to influence the field today.
Stephen Schafer
Schafer also created a victim typology in his book The Victim and His Criminal: A Study in Functional Responsibility (1968). His work examined the level of responsibility that a victim played in his/her victimization. According to Schafer, victims have a responsibility to not act in ways that might provoke their victimization (such as threatening people) as well as doing their best to prevent their own victimization. His 7-point scale ranged from no responsibility at all to complete responsibility.
Schafer’s categories:
1. Unrelated: The victims have no responsibility in their own victimization. 2. Provocative: There is shared responsibility by the victims. 3. Precipitative: The victims have responsibility for their victimization because they place themselves in situations that might lead to victimization.
4. Biologically weak: There is no responsibility, but the victims are easy targets because they are perceived as weak, such as the elderly.
5. Socially weak: No responsibility but victims are easy targets because they are not well integrated into society, such as immigrants.
6. Self-victimizing: Total responsibility. An example would be prostitution. 7. Political: No responsibility. They were victimized because they were opposing those in power.
Marvin E. Wolfgang Patterns of Criminal Homicide
Wolfgang was the first to offer significant empirical evidence to support the role victims might play in their victimization. Wolfgang was particularly interested in asking what role homicide victims play in their own deaths. Wolfgang (1958)
analyzed Philadelphia’s police homicide records from 1948 through 1952 and found three factors common to victim-precipitated homicides:
1. The victim and offender had some prior interpersonal relationship. 2. There was a series of escalating disagreements between the parties. 3. The victim had consumed alcohol.
His results show that around 26 percent of victims had precipitated their own victimization, doing something that had directly led to their own death, such as threatening someone with a weapon or initiating physical violence.