Victimization The Beginnings of Victimology

VIVIANA ANDREESCU In early systems of justice it was up to the victim

and the victim’s kin to decide what action to
take against the offender. At a time when the
The 2010 United Nations (UN) Convention on
state of affairs was not outlined in sets of laws
Justice and Support for Victims of Crime and
or legal codes, society recognized a basic system
Abuse defines victims as “natural persons who,
of retribution and restitution for the offenders
individually or collectively, have suffered harm,
that corresponded to the prevailing social norms.
including physical or mental injury, emotional
Based on the lex talionis principle (i.e., an eye
suffering or economic loss or violations of fun-
for an eye, a tooth for a tooth), punishment was
damental rights.” The UN convention refers to commensurate with the harm inflicted upon
persons who are victimized by acts or omissions the victims. Since the late eighteenth and early
that are violations of national criminal laws, are nineteenth centuries, however, with the devel-
abuses of power, are acts of terrorism, or are acts opment of modern justice systems crime started
of human trafficking (e.g., kidnapping for sexual to be regarded as a threat to social order and
exploitation, forced prostitution, bonded labor, victimization became a state matter. This new
debt bondage, or slavery) (United Nations, 2010, ideology generated a shift in the modern criminal
p. 2). Andrew Karmen defined victimization justice system, which became less concerned with
as an “asymmetrical interpersonal relationship the victims and more interested in controlling
[between the victim and the victimizer] that the criminals. Nonetheless, “it was within this
is abusive, painful, destructive, parasitical, and preoccupation of understanding criminal activity
unfair.” Direct or primary victimization refers and identifying the causes of criminal behav-
to persons who experience the criminal act and ior that the ‘victim’ was rediscovered in the
its consequences firsthand, while indirect or 1940s” (Doerner & Lab, 2012, p. 1). It should be
secondary victimization refers to family members noted that in the early 1920s, Edwin Sutherland
and persons close (loved ones) to the person (1924) devoted the third chapter of his influential
who was a primary victim (Karmen, 2012, pp. book Criminology to victims of crime and the cost
2–10). The term secondary victimization might of crime to society, which Oliver Field, a reviewer
also be used in reference to a primary victim’s of the book, considered to be “distinctly an eye
further suffering caused by unfair treatment by opener” (Field, 1926).
the criminal justice system (Wolhuter, Olley, & The scientific study of victimization was
Denham, 2009, p. 47). pioneered among others by the German crim-
Karmen (2012) also noted that while over inologist Hans von Hentig and the Romanian
the centuries many types of victimization have criminal law scholar Benjamin Mendelsohn
been outlawed, not all hurtful acts and deceitful (van Dijk, 1999). Hans von Hentig (1941, 1948)
practices are forbidden by law. Criminal victim- thought that studying how victims contributed
ization refers only to victims of illegal acts and knowingly or unknowingly to their own vic-
represents the study focus of victimology. As an timization might help crime prevention. In his
academic discipline, victimology is described by book The Criminal and His Victim, von Hentig
the World Society of Victimology (WSV), as “the (1948) included a typology of the victims based
scientific study of the extent, nature and causes on the nature of the victim’s involvement in the
of criminal victimization, its consequences for criminal act. Von Hentig’s typology included 13
the persons involved and the reactions thereto by categories (e.g., the young; the female; the old;
society, in particular the police and the criminal immigrants; mentally defective, etc.), each with
justice system as well as voluntary workers and different risks of victimization. According to von
professional helpers” (in Goodey, 2005, p. 10). Hentig (1948), while in some cases the victims

The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, First Edition. Edited by Wesley G. Jennings.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118519639.wbecpx149
2 V I C T I M I Z AT I O N

did not contribute/had a limited contribution to Philadelphia from 1948 to 1952. Findings showed
their victimization, in other situations there was that many victims had prior interactions with the
a reciprocal action between the victim and the offenders. Also in about one in four homicides
perpetrator. the victim had initially used physical force against
Benjamin Mendelsohn is often referred to as the perpetrator. Wolfgang concluded that these
the “father of victimology.” In 1947, during a cases of lethal violence were victim precipitated.
presentation at the Romanian Psychiatric Associ- The victim-precipitated cases involved mostly
ation conference in Bucharest he coined the term male victims and offenders; the few cases of
“victimology” and introduced it as the “science homicide committed by women were almost
of the victim.” Mendelsohn was a defense lawyer always in response to violence initiated by men.
and his initial interest in the victim originated The victim precipitation theory was later applied
in his intention to point out to the court the by Menachim Amir (1971) in a highly criti-
contribution of the victim to the criminal act. cized study of rape. Even if Wolfgang argued
Mendelsohn (1956) also created a typology of that victim-precipitated murders occurred only
victims based on the victims’ assessed contribu- when the victims initiated violence, Amir used
tion to their own victimization, which included a broader definition of the concept and consid-
six categories (i.e., completely innocent victims, ered that the offender’s interpretation of victims’
victims with minor guilt, victims as guilty as actions (e.g., the victim was perceived as acting in
offender, victims more guilty than offender, most a provocative, seductive way; the victim had a bad
guilty victims, and imaginary victims). Later in reputation) precipitated the rape (see Eigenberg
his life, Mendelsohn supported the idea of an & Garland, 2008, pp. 25–27). Although until
extended victimology – general victimology – that the 1990s, the victim precipitation theory was
would focus on all types of victims, not only on generally rejected by the academic community
victims of crime (see Doerner & Lab, 2012). and by victim advocates as well, being regarded
as a theory that blames the victims and mitigates
the offenders’ actions, the concept of victim
Theories of Victimization proneness reentered the literature when more
recent studies acknowledged not only that a few
Karmen (2012) noted that as a new subdisci- career criminals were responsible for a large part
pline, victimology lacks its own well-developed of the total crime, but also that a small proportion
theories of human behavior. However, as Pamela of the public suffered repeat victimization (van
Wilcox observed, there is a variety of theories Dijk, 1999). In addition, as van Dijk (1999, p. 9)
that attempt to explain victimization. The author observed, the “highly contentious concept of vic-
grouped the theories of victimization into three tim precipitation has also returned,” homicides
large categories. There are theories that “focus by female perpetrators being now analyzed by
on victimization as a function of opportunity (at feminist researchers as responses to long-term
different levels of analysis), those that focus on intimate partner abuse.
victimization as a function of social interactional The lifestyle-exposure theory (Hindelang, Got-
dynamics between victim and offender, and those tfredson, & Garofalo, 1978) and the routine
that focus on victimization as a function of deep activity theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979) are
social division in terms of power and control” two theories formulated in the late 1970s that
(Wilcox, 2010, p. 985). also shifted attention away from offenders and
Early studies conducted by victimologists focused on the role of the victim in the crim-
such as von Hentig (1941, 1948), Mendelsohn inal act. Based on an analysis of victimization
(1956), and later Schafer (1968) focused on the survey data Hindelang et al. (1978, pp. 251–264)
victim–offender relationship and assessed the observed that certain population groups (e.g.,
role of the victim in the criminal act, stressing youth, males, the poor, singles, racial minorities)
the idea that victims and victimizers shared in have higher rates of victimization than others.
different degrees the responsibility for the crime. The authors suggested that these groups by virtue
Following this line of research was Wolfgang’s of their lifestyle may create opportunities for
(1958) classic study of homicides registered in victimization. For instance, it was hypothesized
 V I C T I M I Z AT I O N 3

that the risk of victimization increases with the perspective broadened the focus of victimology
amount of time one spends in public places (espe- and also showed how the criminal justice sys-
cially at night), with the amount of time spent tem responds differentially to victims of crime.
in public places with nonfamily members, or Wolhuter et al. (2009, pp. 30–31) noted that
with one’s inability to isolate oneself from those Marxist victimology, for instance, examined vic-
with offender characteristics. Cohen and Felson’s timization acts committed by powerful business
(1979) routine activity theory postulates that for enterprises and the state, left realism propo-
any crime to occur three elements must converge: nents encouraged the use of crime victimization
a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the surveys to show how people in disadvantaged
absence of capable guardianship. The main thesis communities are overrepresented among crime
was that the dramatic increase in the reported victims, and feminist scholars highlighted the
crime rates in the United States from the 1960s victimization of women and children, especially
to the 1970s was linked to changes in the rou- in the domestic sphere. Critical victimology
tine activity structure of the American society. synthesized insights from feminist theory and
The authors argued that advances in technology left realism encouraged the study of victims’ lived
(e.g., the automobile, highways, production of realities within the context of the material con-
many lightweight, valuable items) generated ditions generated by patriarchy and capitalism
more suitable targets and also enabled offenders (Mawby & Walklate, 1994 in Wolhuter et al.,
to carry out their own work more effectively. 2009). Mawby and Walklate (1994) also pointed
In addition, societal changes (e.g., increases in out that many crimes committed by the powerful
college student female population; increases in in society are not subjected to the criminal code.
married female labor force participant rates; Other proponents of critical victimology stressed
increases in the percentage of single persons) the fact that nonconventional crimes such as
contributed to a decrease in guardian presence genocide, political corruption, and human and
increasing the victimization opportunities. Using firearm trafficking should not be neglected by
a timeseries analysis for the years 1947–1974 the victimologists and criminologists (see Doerner
authors found positive and significant relation- & Lab, 2012, pp. 13–14). Similar ideas have
ships between the household activity ratio (based been formulated by Mendelsohn (1976) who
on the household’s dispersion of activities and supported a general victimology that would focus
the household likelihood of owning extra sets not only on criminal victimization, but also on
of durable goods) and trends for five types of victims of the social environment, victims of the
predatory crimes. natural environment, victims of technology, and
Initially designed as a macro-level theory, the self-victimization (Doerner & Lab, 2012, p. 11).
routine activity theory has been further applied
to explain victimization risk across individuals
and also across various spatial units (see Wilcox, Estimating Victimization
2010). Although the theory has traditionally been
used to explain variations in property crimes, Data on victims of crime started to be collected
routine activity theory has been also applied to in United States about five decades ago, when
explain variations in victimizations by preda- the first-generation of victimization surveys had
tory crimes such as rape, stalking, and sexual been undertaken at the request of the Presi-
harassment. Findings generally showed a positive dent’s Commission on Law Enforcement and
correlation between exposure to risk and actual the Administration of Justice. As the problem of
victimization (see Eigenberg & Garland, 2008). street crime intensified in the 1960s in the United
A third group of theories of victimization States, the commission argued that criminologists
explain victimization as a result of differences in ought to pay more attention not only to criminals
power between victims and offenders. From the but also to victims of crime (Karmen, 2012).
conflict theoretical perspective, victimization is a Although many imperfections (e.g., nonrandom
result of structural inequalities and represents selection of household respondents; unknown
a victimizer’s attempt to dominate and control margin of error of victimization estimates; crime
the victim (Wilcox, 2010).The conflict theoretical misclassifications; definitional problems with
4 V I C T I M I Z AT I O N

survey questions; having a count of victims rather motor vehicle theft for the entire population and
than offenses, etc.) contaminated the findings of also for different segments of the population, such
the studies conducted in the mid 1960s, these as the elderly, women, racial and ethnic minority
early victimization surveys demonstrated that groups, urban residents, etc. In addition, the sur-
sensitive information, such as experience with vey collects information about the characteristics
victimization, can be collected from the public. of violent offenders and the impact of crime on
In addition, these pilot studies established the victims (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013). NCVS
need for more refined victimization surveys. was created in response to criticisms of the main
Methodologically improved, a second generation data source on crime in the country, the Uniform
of victim surveys (including city-specific surveys) Crime Reporting (UCR) system, which provides
were launched in the late 1960s and early 1970s. information only on crime incidents registered by
From the 1970s to the 1980s, a third generation of the police. Additionally, UCR data are aggregated
victimization surveys followed. In the early 1970s, counts of offenses that do not provide detailed
the National Crime Survey (NCS), a commercial information on the specific incident of crime,
victimization survey, and city surveys started as NCVS does. Critics also argued that UCR
to be conducted in the United States. In 1972, figures are affected by the recording practices of
26 cities were selected for special surveys that the police, that UCR emphasizes street crimes,
gathered information on crime and victimization or that crimes registered by the police mainly
from 12,000 households and 2,000 businesses. In reflect a law enforcement agency style of work.
1975, however, due to financial considerations, The main perceived advantage of NCVS is that it
the city surveys were discontinued. A sample of collects information on crimes reported and not
15,000 businesses had been included in a project reported to the police, offering as a result a more
that started in 1972 and was intended to assess accurate picture of the actual levels of crime and
the businesses’ risk of victimization. Nonethe- victimization in the country.
less, mainly because the sample was considered Jennifer Truman and her colleagues from the
too small to provide reliable estimates and the Bureau of Justice Statistics noted that even if
operational costs of the project were too high, throughout the 40-year history of the NCVS, the
the survey was discontinued as well in 1977. The program has generally demonstrated year-to-year
late 1980s marks the beginning of the current increases or decreases in the levels of overall vio-
fourth generation of victim surveys. In 1993, a lent and property crimes similar to those shown
redesign of NCS was fully implemented, a major by UCR data, in certain years and for many
goal of the change being to enhance the analytical specific crime types results have been different
worth of the survey. The title of the survey has when UCR and NCVS data have been compared
been changed as well to National Crime Vic- (e.g., UCR data indicate that from 2011 to 2012
timization Survey (NCVS). It is anticipated that violent crimes known to the police increased by
technological and methodological advances as 0.7% and the number of property crimes declined
well as different informational needs regarding by 0.9%, while based on NCVS findings, the
victimization-related issues will generate further number of violent crimes increased by 17.7%
modifications of NCVS (Doerner & Lab, 2012, and the number of property crimes increased by
pp. 26–35). 15% during the same period). Analysts indicate
Nowadays, the National Crime Victimization that disparities in reporting, when they occur,
Survey (NCVS) can be considered the main are mainly due to significant methodological
source of data on criminal victimization in the and definitional differences that exist between
United States. The scientifically designed survey UCR and NCVS programs. For instance, while
collects victimization information from a repre- UCR includes only data reported to the police,
sentative sample of about 90,000 US households, it also includes data on homicide, arson, and
comprising nearly 160,000 individuals. Each commercial crimes, while NCVS excludes these
household is interviewed twice during a year. The crime types, but includes nonreported crimes.
survey enables estimates regarding the likelihood NCVS also excludes crimes against children age
of victimization by rape or sexual assault, robbery, 11 or younger and persons institutionalized, and
aggravated assault, theft, household burglary, and is less likely to collect information from highly
 V I C T I M I Z AT I O N 5

mobile populations and the homeless, while UCR crime prevention, and fear of crime. ICVS also
might include victimizations against these per- allows for analysis of how risks of crime vary
sons. UCR, however, excludes simple assault and among different groups of populations across
sexual assault, which are included in the NCVS. social and demographic lines. Whereas NCVS
“Given these differences, the two measures of and BCS focus mainly on street crimes, ICVS
crime should be considered to complement each also collects information on political corrup-
other and provide a more comprehensive picture tion, hate crimes, slave trade, and other types of
of crime in the United States” (Truman, Langton, nonconventional crimes (Killias, 2010).
& Planty, 2013, p. 9). After 1989, when the first round of ICVS took
Even if victimization surveys were pioneered in place, four more rounds were completed in 1992,
the United States, surveys that included questions 1996–1997, 2000, and 2005. Fifteen Western
regarding criminal victimization started to be countries participated in at least four rounds of
conducted in the early 1970s in European coun- ICVS and five countries have participated in all
tries such as the Netherlands, Switzerland, and five rounds of the ICVS (Canada, England &
Germany (Killias, 2010). In Great Britain too, the Wales, Finland, the Netherlands, and USA) (van
first major survey of victims was conducted in Dijk, van Kesteren, & Smit, 2007). Additionally,
the early 1970s (Goodey, 2005, p. 46). Since 1982, in 2005, the European Commission (EC) cospon-
when the first British Crime Survey (BCS) was sored the work of the ICVS in the fifteen older
initiated in the United Kingdom, data on crime states of the European Union. The results were
and experience with victimization have been combined with those of the fifth round of the
regularly collected from representative samples ICVS (2005), covering 31 nations. In 2008–2009
of residents in England and Wales. In 1983, a the EC started preparatory work for a victimiza-
national crime victimization survey was initiated tion survey to be carried on by Eurostat in all
in the Netherlands, and in 1984 Martin Killias countries of the European Union. Although the
designed the first Swiss National Victimization fieldwork that was scheduled to start in 2013 has
Survey (Doerner & Lab, 2012). been postponed, in 2010 several national surveys
At the international level, the International based on ICVS methodology were conducted
Crime Victim Survey (ICVS) is regarded as the in Canada, Denmark, England and Wales, Ger-
most comprehensive international data source many, the Netherlands, and Sweden. In addition,
and one of the largest projects in international independent of these EU-sponsored surveys, in
criminology. Initiated in 1988 and funded origi- 2010–2011, ICVS-based surveys were conducted
nally by the Ministry of Justice of the Netherlands, in Switzerland and five countries that are former
the project, an important source of comparative republics of the Soviet Union (van Dijk, 2012).
information on levels of crime and personal vic-
timization now covers 80 different countries (van
Dijk, 2012, p. 24). ICVS intended to fill the gap Victimization Patterns and Victimization
in adequate recording of offenses by the police Trends
and also to provide a crime index independent
of police statistics as an alternative standardized In the United States, according to the NCVS
measure. By using a standardized questionnaire, results, in 2012, for the second consecutive year,
ICVS made possible intercountry comparisons violent and property crime rates increased for
that otherwise would have been difficult to make US residents age 12 and older. In 2012, the rate
due to cultural differences in the definition of of violent victimization per 1,000 persons was
crime and methodological dissimilarities. In 26.1 and the rate of property crime per 1,000
addition, ICVS provided information on criminal was 155.8. The number of violent victimizations
victimization in developing nations and coun- rose from 5.8 million in 2011 to 6.8 million
tries in transition, which had been previously in 2012, the increase being largely due to an
unavailable. As part of the project, standardized increase in the number of simple assaults. In
sample surveys have been used in all participant 2012, less than half of the violent victimizations
countries to collect information regarding a (44%) were reported to the police; the majority
householder’s experience with crime, policing, (54%) of serious violent victimizations (rape or
6 V I C T I M I Z AT I O N

sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) 2011and 26.1 per 1,000 in 2012), current rates of
were reported, however. Compared to residents violent victimization in the United States are still
of suburban and rural areas, urban residents significantly lower than they were a decade ago
continued to experience in 2012 the highest rate (Truman et al., 2013).
of violent crime (32.4 per 1,000) and the highest The lack of current data from a large number
rate of property victimization (187.0 per 1,000). of countries makes it rather difficult to correctly
Residents from the Western region experienced estimate victimization rates and victimization
significant increases in both violent and property trends at the international level. Following are
victimization rates in 2012 compared to 2011. briefly presented some of the findings included
The property victimization rate was the highest in reports that analyzed data from the last round
for persons residing in the West (210.5 per 1,000), of ICVS (2004–2005) and data from 2010–2011
being almost twice as high as the property victim- national surveys that used the ICVS methodol-
ization rate of residents from Northeast (117 per ogy. A 2007 report (see van Dijk et al., 2007) that
1,000). Similarly, compared to the previous year, presents data on victimization from 38 countries
African Americans, widowed persons, and indi- (i.e., ICVS was conducted in 30 countries, includ-
viduals belonging to age groups 12–17, 25–34, ing the majority of developed nations and in 33
and 35–49 experienced significantly higher rates large cities in a selected group of developed and
of violent victimization in 2012. Similar to 2011, developing nations) indicates that, on average, at
the 2012 rate of serious violence for blacks (11.3 the national level 16% of the population had been
per 1,000) was higher than the rate for whites a victim of at least one of any 10 common crimes
(6.8 per 1,000). In 2012, based on the respon- during the year that preceded the interview (i.e.,
dent’s marital status at the time of the interview, 2003 or 2004). The countries with the highest
married persons generally had the lowest rate of overall victimization rates were Ireland, England
violence (13.5 per 1,000) compared to persons & Wales, New Zealand, and Iceland. The lowest
never married (40.7 per 1,000), divorced (37.0 victimization rates were found in Spain, Japan,
per 1,000), or separated (83.1 per 1,000) (Truman Hungary, and Portugal. Most of the countries
et al., 2013). with available data showed a distinct downward
While during the past decade the rates of violent trend in the level of victimization since 1995.
victimization for males continued to be higher Victimization in large urban areas was found to
than the rates of violent victimization for women, be significantly higher than the average national
the gender difference in rates is lower now than levels, with larger differences in rates being found
it was in the early 1990s (e.g., in 2012, the violent in developing countries. London in the United
victimization rate for males was 29.1 per 1,000 Kingdom and Tallinn, the capital city of Esto-
and the violent victimization rate for women was nia, had the highest victimization rates, while
23.3 per 1,000). Although the domestic violence Hong Kong had the lowest victimization rate.
rate was lower in 2012 compared to 2011, the Approximately 1.8% of the households in the 30
change was not significant. The rates for all types countries had been victims of domestic burglaries
of violent crimes, including domestic violence, and 4% of the respondents had been victims of
were lower in 2012 compared to 2003. The rate of theft at the national level. On average, 1% of
firearm violence was slightly lower in 2012 (1.8) the population had been victimized by robbery
than in 2003 (2.0), but the change was not statis- at the national level. Residents of large cities in
tically significant. Based on data from the Center developing countries experienced this type of vic-
for Disease Control’s Vital Statistics System, from timization significantly more frequently (6.1%)
1993 to 2011, the rate of homicide declined 48%, than persons living in large cities in developed
from 9.9 to 5.1 per 100,000 persons. From 1993 countries (1.4%). Mexico City had the highest
to 2010, the rate of violent victimization reported rate of robbery.
and not reported to the police decreased 75%, More than 1% of female respondents in the
from 80 per 1,000 persons age 12 and older to USA, Iceland, Sweden, and Northern Ireland
approximately 20 per 1,000 persons. Although and less than 0.1% in Hungary and Mexico
the rates of total violent crime increased slightly experienced sexual assault in 2003/2004. No
in the following two years (i.e., 22.6 per 1,000 in significant differences in sexual victimization
 V I C T I M I Z AT I O N 7

rates were found when data from large cities were SEE ALSO: Indirect Victimization; National
compared to national rates. Assault and/or threat Crime Victimization Survey; Repeat Victim-
represented the most frequent type of violent ization; Restorative Justice; Victim-Offender
victimization. Both robberies and assaults were Overlap.
more likely to involve guns in the United States
than in Europe. According to the 2004–2005
ICVS results, 29% of households in the United References
States and 4% of households in Western Europe
were gun owners (van Dijk et al., 2007). Amir, M. (1971). Patterns in forcible rape. Chicago, IL:
Regarding victimization by nonconventional University of Chicago Press.
crimes results showed that approximately 10% of Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). (2013). Data
the respondents had been a victim of consumer collection: National Crime Victimization Sur-
vey (NCVS). Retrieved April 16, 2015, from
fraud (including credit card fraud and fraudulent
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245
internet transactions) during the year preceding Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and
the interview. Over 20% of respondents from crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. Amer-
Estonia, Greece, and Bulgaria had experienced ican Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
this type of victimization. Additionally, on aver- Doerner, W. G., & Lab, S. (2012). Victimology. Burling-
age, about 3% of respondents from the 15 “old” ton, MA: Anderson Publishing.
EU member states declared they had been victims Eigenberg, H., & Garland, T. (2008). Victim blaming. In
L. J. Moriarty (Ed.), Controversies in victimology (pp.
of hate crimes. Higher percentages of hate crime 21–36). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.
victims have been found in France, Denmark, and Field, O. P. (1926). Criminology, by Edwin Sutherland.
the United Kingdom. About 10% of the respon- Indiana Law Journal, 1(4), Article 5.
dents declared they had been confronted with Goodey, J. (2005). Victims and victimology: Research,
drug-related problems in their neighborhoods. A policy, and practice. Harlow, England: Pearson Long-
higher incidence was recorded in Greece (25%). man.
Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1978).
In sum, the most striking result of the fifth round
Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for
of ICVS was a near universal drop in the volume a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA:
of crime (van Dijk et al., 2007). Ballinger.
A recent analysis based on pilot studies con- Karmen, A. (2012). Crime victims: An introduction to
ducted in 2010–2011 in 12 countries (Azerbaijan, victimology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Killias, M. (2010). International Crime Victimization
Moldova, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Survey (ICVS). In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (pp.
Tajikistan, and the UK) where a reduced ver- 486–489). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
sion of the ICVS questionnaire has been used Mawby, R. I., & Walklate, S. (1994). Critical victimology:
indicated that out of six types of crime (vehicle International perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
theft, burglary, robbery, assault, larceny-theft, Mendelsohn, B. (1956). Une nouvelle branche de la
and bribery), victimization by threat-assault science bio-psycho-sociale: La victimologie (A new
was the most common form of victimization branch of bio-psychological science: Victimology).
Revue Internationale de Criminologie et de Police
in most countries. Results also showed a neg-
Technique, 10, 782–789.
ative correlation between the country’s GDP Mendelsohn, B. (1976). Victimology and contemporary
and overall victimization rates. However, while society’s trends. Victimology – An International Jour-
bribery-seeking had the highest rates in develop- nal, 1, 8–28.
ing countries, car theft and rates of threat-assault Schafer, S. (1968). The victim and his criminal: A study in
were higher in more affluent countries. Com- functional responsibility. New York Random House.
pared to prior ICVS data, the results of these Sutherland, E. H. (1924). Criminology. Philadelphia, PA:
J. P. Lippincott Company.
recent victimization surveys also showed that Truman, J., Langton, L., & Planty, M. (2013). Crimi-
there was a surge in violent crimes from 2005 nal victimization, 2012. October 2013, NCJ 243389.
to 2010/2011 at least in some countries, most Retrieved April 15, 2015, from http://www.bjs.gov/
notably in Switzerland (van Dijk, 2012). content/pub/pdf/cv12.pdf
8 V I C T I M I Z AT I O N

United Nations (UN). (2010). UN Convention on von Hentig, H. (1941). Remarks on the interaction of
Justice and Support for Victims of Crime and Abuse perpetrator and victim. Journal of the American Insti-
of Power. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from http://www. tute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 31, 303–309.
worldsocietyofvictimology.org/publications/ von Hentig, H. (1948). The criminal and his victim: Stud-
Draft%20Convention.pdf ies in the sociobiology of crime. New York: Anchor
van Dijk, J. (1999). Introducing victimology. Retrieved Books.
April 22, 2015, from https://pure.uvt.nl/portal/ Wilcox, P. (2010). Theories of victimization. In B. S.
files/1411974/INTRODUC.PDF Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology
van Dijk, J. (2012). The International Crime Victims and crime prevention (pp. 978–986). Thousand Oaks,
Survey: Latest results and prospects. Criminology in CA: Sage.
Europe, 11, 24–33. Wolfgang, M. E. (1958). Patterns in criminal homicide.
van Dijk, J., van Kesteren, J., & Smit, P. (2007). Criminal Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
victimization in international perspective: Key Wolhuter, L., Olley, N., & Denham, D. (2009). Victi-
findings from the 2004–2005 ICVS and EU ICS. mology: Victimisation and victims’ rights. New York:
Retrieved April 15, 2015, from http://www.unicri.it/ Routledge – Cavendish.
services/library_documentation/publications/icvs/
publications/ICVS2004_05report.pdf