Victim Theories of Precipitation, Facilitation and Provocation

When we name or refer for someone as a victim will be defining that person as a person who suffered harm in several aspects directly from the perpetrator such as physical or emotional harm and property damage or even the person will experience serious issues which invovles economy due to the crime. In these crime, the only victim will be the person who the crime was committed against therefore the society don’t be harmed as a whole. When a crime is done directly to the person, this will bring with it several consequences such as fear, anxiety, anger and self-blame. In certain cases it is also discribed that the victim contributes in the building of the crime that the perpetrator commits on them. This occurs when the victim wrongful act against them by the perpetrator therefor the offender will profit from that act to victimize the person due to the act that was done. Due to this fact, theories could be found that will explain more how a victim can act as a helping hand to the offender. Theories such as victim precipitation, facilitation and provocation are explored in this essay. These theories discribes more the concepts of how a victim contributes in the building of the offence.

Victim Precipitation: Von Hentig's 13 Categories of Victims

Vicitm Precipitation is defined as a theory which analyzes how and when a victim interacts with an offender may lead to a crime to be committed. Most likely crimes that will occur will be such as homicide, rape ,assult and robbery. It is theory that was intoduced and developed by Martin Wolfgang in the 20th Century in his writing artical; Victim Preciptated Criminal Homocide.

Wolfgang explains how in many crimes,t he victim is the majot contributor in the criminal act meaning that the vicgim could be one of the main precipitating causes of his own death. In his article, Wolfgang explained were the term victim-precipitation i used, mostly in those crimes where the victim is direct and positive precipitator in the crime. This shows that a victim must have been the first person who used physical force against the offender therefore the victim must be the first who reacted.

Another Criminology Professior that wrote about vicitm precipitation is. Menachem Amir in his article, Victim precipitated forcible rape. His definition of precipation is “quick and hurried action”, he discibes this behaviour as differentiation from “provocation” and outright “seduction”. As his main topic was forcible rape,his theoretical definition of victim percipitation in that context is that in a specific circumstances, how the victim behaves is interpreted by the offender either as a direct invitation for sexual realtions or as a sign of her availability for sexual contact,therefore victim behaviour may be formed of an act of “commissio” or “omission”.

In the book, The Criminal and his Victims, written by criminologist Hans Von Henting, gives an idea that crime is an energetic social connection where both the victim and perpetrator make their part in the final outcome. In several criminal activites, crimes cannot be understood alone as encounters that only one person, the perpetartor, was actively involved. Part of a statement that Von Hentig wrote is, “ I maintain that many criminal deeds are more indicative of a subject-object relation than of the perpetrator alone. There is a definite mutuality of some sort..” In this statement, Von Hentig says that when you choose who’s fault is it and who should take the blame is not clear enough like the law wants people to believe. He insisted that the victim do effect his or her criminal victimization. From here, Von Hentig discribes his views on victim precipitation, which discribes it that vicitms seize in behavior that will automaticlly influence the results of the victimology events, which could lead to their victimization.

He argued that the victims of crime could be listed in one of the 13 categories that be based on their propensity of victimization. The Young is the first category, which Von Hentig was referring to infants and children who are physically weak, have less mental prowess,those who have a few leagl rights and those who are financially depentend on their caretaker such as parents and guardiance. These children who falls under this category are also in a high risk of being harmed by adults which they are not able to defent themselves from that abuse and even less likely that when they seek for assistance,they are believed. Children and infants which are included in this category are those who suffers emotional, physical and sexual abuse at home from their parents who often are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, those who experience bullying at school which could be happening because of their apperance or personality and those who’s their parents forced them into prostitution. Thes children unfortunitly suffers from different levels and kinds of harm which will effect them in their life.

The second category is The Female, where Von Henting was referring to all women.He explained that women are weaker than men in terms of physical and their cultural condition to accept male authority. Many women depends a lot on male when it comes to finance, such as husbands and fathers. Situations for women became more problematic by Western women as they believe that the value of a female os associated with their sexuality and their bodies. In several cases, these could lead to problems such as depression, substance abuse and also prostitution led by low self-esteem.

The third category is The Old, which he refers to those who are vulnerable,such like children. These elderly could be under someone else’s care which is because of their weak physicality. These issues may lead to them being harmed in particular theft from their property. Von Hentig explains how these elderly people could have greater access to money and have a poor memory which may lead them to be vulnarable to confidence scams and also as they have a sense of pride, they might not report any loss.

The fourth category, Von Hentig labels it as The Mentally Defective and Deranged,which he was referring to the “feeble-minded”, the alcoholics and drug addicts. These people who suffers any type of these conditions,they have a different perception of reality. Because of the environment around them, their personality and the level of disorder,they could harm themselves easily.

The fifth category is Immigrants, those forigners which find the culture they are put in strange. Everyone going to another culture finds it difficult to adapt and to communicate. This will expose them to several confidence schemes, abuse and theft.

Von Hentig referes to Minorities as “racially disadvantages”. Those who are against some amount of bias by others might be vulnerable to several levels of abuse and violence.

In another category, Von Hentig explains Dull Normals as those people with “simple-minds”, which might have the same types of vulnerability as those who are mentally defective.

Those who have several psychological illness, Von Hentig labels them as The Depressed. These people may expose themselves to different types of danger and intentional. These people could be in need of psychotropic medication that changes the precipitation, damaging reasoning and affects judgement.

Those people who are refered to as greedy and what to gain things instantly, as discribed as The Acquisitive. To reach their goals, these people might interupt their judgment or their intentions while putting themselves in dangerous situations.

The tenth category is The Wanton. Von Hentig was referring to promiscuous persons. These persons are those who take part in indiscriminate sexual activity with many different people which will expose them to several levels of disease and varying personalities. While some of these partners could be healthy and helpful, others could be narcissistic, envious and destructive.

Those who are widows or widowers and those in mourning are discribed as The Lonesome or Heartbroken. Von Hentig explains how loneliness is at epidemic proportions as a good percentage of the marriages ends up in divorce. This section isn’t only applicable to those in mourning, those who are alone or heartbroken are also vulnerable to abuse and could also be manipulated and abusive.

When a parent is abusive to family members, Von Hentig labels these kind of person as The Tormentor. When they abuse those around them,they will be exposed to the harm they created themselves and to how the victim will react. Such an example, when a mother punches one of her child due to her being drunk,she could end up hurting her hand.

The last category that Von Hentig discribed victims labels them as The Blocked, Exempted or Fighting. He discribes them as victims of blackmail or scams. During time, victims could still be exposed to financial crisis which could be ongoing or even physical harm. These victims also could experience consequences when they report and involve police in the case, so normally victims would prefer to leave out the police and won’t report what they are experience

Victim Facilitation: Reasons Why Someone Became a Victim

When you talk about victim facilitation, one could notice that it is very similar to victim precipitation. Victim facilitation is when the person is a victim by a choice, which occurs the victim without knowing and without any intention makes it easier for the offender to commit a crime on them. As Karmen. A stated, this means that the victim could act as a catalyst which will increase the chance of victimazation. Something that facilitation is different from the previous theory is that facilitation helps us to understand why a person is victimized by the offender although it does not indicate who’s the blame and responsability of the crime. As an example of this theory, when a woman is battered by her husband, she might be considred as her choice. It is described like this because she always has the opportunity or the choince to leave her husband but it is unlikely that the victim notice the choice that could be made.

Victim facilitation theory was also introduced by Marvin Wolfgang. This theory allows the action to be analyzed which makes the victim vulnerable to being a victim of a crime. A.Karmen in 2010 stated that “Victim facilitaio ought to be reserved for situation in whcih victims carelessly and inadvertently make it easier for a theif to steal” The carelessness and the lack of attention allows more the offender to commit the crime against the victims which makes the blame shared between both parties. H.J Schneider,during his article explains how victim facilitation is a model that explains the misinterprataion by the offender of victim behaviour. He continues to say that this theory is based on the “theory of a symbolic interaction” and alson this won’t reduce the responsability that the offender has to carry.

Eric Hickey, a major serial killers analyser, during his studies he labeled the victims as high,low or mixed,depending on the facilitation of the murde.Mainly the categorazation was established on the lifestyle risk, type of employment and their location of the crime. Hickery concluded that 13% - 15% of victims had low facilitation while a combination of low and high was estimated between 23% - 25%. He also stated that among murderers, one out of five victims had a greater risk of working as prostitutes or involve themselves when they are in contact woth unknown people. In connection with vicitm facilitation, Dr M Godwin discussed the victim social network which he compares them together because that theory is about the locations where victims are most vulnerable for the serial killer.

Victim Provocation: a 'Green' Light for Abuser

“Ptovocation means that the loser is more responsible than the victor for the fight that ensued”, this is how Andrew Karmen described the concept of victim provocation in his book.

Victim Provocation occurs when a person does something that encourage another person to reach in an illegal way. This explains that if their was not an illegal or a bad behaviour from the victim, it is liekly that the crime would have not been committed,therefore it gives blame to the victim, which in fact the offender will not get the blame. When a victim provocates during a crime being done against him/her, the vicitm might lose self control which eventually will make them less morally culpable than if the act against them was already planned. An example of this theory is when a man tries to attack another man who was on his way home and the man tries to steal from the victim, eventually the victim will resist the theft and pulls out a gun and shots the offender.

Martin Wolfgang also mentioned Victim Provocation in his journal,were during the study case he did in Philadelphia in 1958 about homcides, he took from the police records that between 1948 and 1952, the concept of victim provocation was controversy for the criminological thought. He concluded that in 26 % of the criminal homicides,the vicitm in fact confronted the offender either verbally or by physical force. During his journal, Wolfgang explained how the law of homicide recognize provocation by the victim as a viable reason for reduction of the offense from murder tokilling or from criminal to a homicide with an excuse. Wolfgang described four prerequisites so that reduction occurn,which are quoted:

• must have been adequate provocation;
• killing must have been in the heat of passion,
• killing must hvae followed the provocation before there had been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool;
• casual connection must exist between provocation,heat of passion and homicide act.

In an article about the conceptes of this theory, Narayan and Von Hiresch describes the 3 conceptions of Provocation which are Impaied Volition, Provocation as a Partial Excuse and Minstread Women and Violent Men. They show the difference the moral and psychological assumptions that these three concepts have.

The “Impaired Volition’ Theory, the writers started by explaining the two main requirements in this theory,the first one explains that an act mus be done exactly after the provocated behaviour of the victim and the second one is about the victim’s behaviour which causes a “reasonable person” to defend himself. These two requirements performs with this theory because the person does not take the full balme when his or her self-control is influenced by another’s misconduct. When someone is being provoked to violence, this will involve the person who was acting in a wrong manner and responding to the act out of sense. The writers believe that the impaired volition theory doesn’t reflect this conception in different reasons, such as this theory does not fit in certain situations of provocation, in a way where the actor increase his anger because of the victim’s misconduct which will lead to a real reduction in his ability to his behaviour. In other cases also their could be a “wrongful defendant” which in a particular situation loses his reasoning and hit the victim without any control. The writers explains that this is very rare that could happen.

The “Proportionate Response” describes how Jeremy Horder has the dignity of treating the actor’s feeling as no emotional instability. This will reduce drasticlly the behavioural controls but as a morally-based emotion. In majority of his bool, Horder gives his explaination on how provocation should be recognized but in some parts,he seems to change his mind and discuss how provocation should be abolished. Horder sometimes does identify provocation as a nature of a quasi-excuse more than as a legal justificaltion.

The “Moral Conflict” is the last model that Narayan and Von Hirsh explains in terms of provocation, which they explain it as partian excuse. Like Horder,theur views are that provocation is an answer for the victim’s wrong behaviour but opposite to Horder, they say how provocation plea is oncluded as partial excuse. This model explains how a person being provocated decrease the guilt in terms of conflict in moral sentiments. The recognition of the provocation plea as a partial excuse lest us wipe out the arguemt which Horder wrote against idetifiying provocation plea in his final chapter of the book in which he claims taht it will lead to bad results due to a favour of male violence at the expenses of women. The writers emphasises that moral conflict theory doesn’t imply provocation cases as a good thing, they explains how better it is if people who reacted wrongful remained peaceable and how it is not correct that you blame the provoked actor.

Conclusion

These theories helped us to understand and identify the difference that their is between them,mainly showing that Victim Precipitation is the main theory while both Victim Provocation and Victim Facilitation are so called sub-topics to it. The distinctions between the three theories are not always clear enough as different researchers studied and developed them to provide the different ways between the theories. In the theory which explains Victim Precipitation, Wolfgang and Von Hentig explained in details their views and their thoughts about it. Victim Facilitation is a lot similar to Victim Precipitation, in which Karmen. A explained how a victim could end up as a victim by choice. When a person encorages someone to react in an illegal way to commit a crime,is the Victim Provocation, when the victim do acts to provocate the offender which will end up victimize the other person.These theories all aim to give fault to the victim which will be the prime factors for being victimized.

References

1. Dugan, L., & Sacco, V. F. (2001). The extent and nature of facilitation: Findings from the national violence against women survey. Violence and victims, 16(1), 59-73.

2. Wilson, D. B., & Daly, M. (1993). Spousal homicide risk and estrangement. Violence and victims, 8(1), 3-16.

3. DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (1998). Woman abuse on campus: Results from the Canadian National Survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

4. Goode, W. J. (1971). Force and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 33(4), 624-636.

   Keep in mind:
   This is only a sample.

   Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

   Get custom essay

5. Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5(4), 497-538.