Now that you have a general understanding of victimology in criminology, it’s time to take a closer look at three main theories of victimology:
- Victim precipitation theory
- Lifestyle theory
- Deviant place theory
All three theories seek to understand why certain people may be more likely than others to become victims of crime.
It’s critical to understand that these theories do not seek to shift blame for the crime to the victim; no one deserves to be victimized. Rather, these theories seek to understand why criminals may decide to target certain people instead of others.
Victim Precipitation Theory
The victim precipitation theory suggests that the characteristics of the victim precipitate the crime. That is, a criminal could single out a victim because the victim is of a certain ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity. The victim precipitation theory is particularly relevant when discussing hate crimes.
However, this theory does not only involve hate crimes directed at specific groups of people. It might also involve occupations or activities. For example, someone who is opposed to his or her views may target a political activist, elected official or candidate. An employee may target a recently promoted employee if he or she believes they deserved the promotion instead of their victim.
Lifestyle Theory
The lifestyle theory suggests that certain people may become the victims of crimes because of their lifestyles and choices. While addiction is a disease, not a lifestyle choice,3 it’s generally included in this category of victimology theories. For example, someone with a gambling or substance addiction could be seen as an “easy victim” by a con artist.
Walking alone at night in a dangerous area, conspicuously wearing expensive jewelry, leaving doors unlocked and associating with known criminals are other lifestyle characteristics that may lead to victimization.
Deviant Place Theory
There is some overlap between the lifestyle theory and the deviant place theory. The deviant place theory states that an individual is more likely to become the victim of a crime when exposed to dangerous areas.4
In other words, a mugger may be more likely to target a person walking alone after dark in a bad neighborhood. The more frequently a person ventures into dangerous neighborhoods where violent crime is common, the greater the risk of victimization.
There is also some overlap between the deviant place theory and socioeconomic approaches to victimization. Low-income households are more likely to be in or near dangerous areas of town, and individuals from poor socioeconomic backgrounds are less capable of moving away from these dangerous areas.4
