In discussing victimization, it is important to determine whether the victim had any possible relationships or engaged in any acts or behaviors that may have led, intentionally or otherwise, to a crime being perpetrated against them. This discussion is not intended to accuse or blame the victim. Rather, our analysis of possible roles may help us understand the lead-up to, and any possible encouragement or facilitation of, the crime committed.

A theoretical construct may help us understand better the victim’s involvement, if any, prior to the criminal act. The construct is actually more of a continuum indicating the varying degrees of potential shared responsibility (Karmen, 2007). At the extreme end of the continuum is the completely innocent victim who has 0% shared responsibility. At the other end is victim fabrication where the victim is 100% responsible. As with any continuum, there are intermediate levels of varying degrees of shared responsibility. In ascending order (least to most) of seriousness, we consider the completely innocent victim, victim inaction, victim proneness, victim facilitation, victim precipitation, victim provocation, and finally, victim fabrication.

If one were to display the continuum for visual effect starting with the greatest level of shared responsibility, and include a short explanation for each level, it might look something like this:

Victim Fabrication: Originally believed to be a victim, facts later reveal that they are fully 100% responsible for the crime committed. In this case, the victim has total complicity and full responsibility for the crime. For example, in an insurance fraud scheme, the car owner creates a false or embellished report of a collision that is verified by their coconspirator who operates a repair facility. This would allow for the collection of money as reimbursement for unnecessary repairs or repairs to damage that never existed.

Victim Provocation: The victim contributes in a substantial way to becoming a victim. An example of this is an altercation in a bar.  John insults Tom relentlessly. When Tom tries to ignore his tormentor, John picks a fight with him. Tom gets fed up with the teasing and responds by killing John.

Victim Precipitation: Victims can precipitate a crime and thereby be partially responsible for the crime if their actions significantly contributed to it. An example of this might be verbally challenging another (e.g., calling someone a derogatory name) or displaying a hostile gesture, or cutting off another driver in traffic, thus precipitating an act of road rage.

Victim Facilitation: Victims may unknowingly make it easier for a crime to occur through their own careless behavior, negligence, or foolishness. For example, parking your vehicle in an area accessible to the public and then leaving your doors unlocked, a window partially down, and the keys in the ignition would be an example of how the victim made it easier for a crime to be committed.

Victim Proneness: A person who operates in dangerous environments, lives in high-crime areas, or socializes with known criminals increases the potential for becoming a victim.

Victim Inaction: A person is victimized but, due to one or more reasons, does nothing toward reporting the crime or seeking resources.

Completely Innocent: Someone who neither contributes consciously nor participates in an event that victimizes them would be considered completely innocent. Imagine someone visiting a bank to transact business who gets caught up in an armed robbery. If the robber orders them to lie prone on the floor, not pull an alarm, or call the police and the individual willingly capitulates to the robber’s demands, the victim should not be faulted for their inaction under duress.

A victim might fall into any one, or a combination of two or more, of the above listed levels of shared responsibility depending on the circumstances surrounding the event (Karmen, 2007).

Attributions

1. Figure 4.9: Image released under the Pexels License