It is fundamentally important to realize that the discipline of victimology lacks a common, singular ideology that consistently applies to the direction and scope of studies undertaken. In fact, there are at least three currently accepted ideologies involved in the analysis of victimology (Karmen, 2007). When utilizing the scientific method, it is generally accepted that these three ideologies influence the discipline of victimology: (a) the conservative tendency, (b) the liberal tendency, and (c) the radical tendency. Understanding the characteristics of each tendency makes it easier to appreciate the different directions the discipline could take based on which ideology is determined to be the most influential.

THE CONSERVATIVE TENDENCY

The conservative tendency primarily concerns the study of victims of traditional street crimes, such as those found in the Uniform Crime Report. White-collar crimes are generally excluded from study under the conservative tendency. The conservative tendency maintains that every individual is somewhat answerable for their own victimization and, as such, is ultimately responsible for taking reasonable precautions to avoid being victimized. Individuals must take reasonable care and caution in their daily activities to prevent crime victimization. People’s actions and their decisions ought not be careless, facilitative, or provocative to a would-be offender. By assuming this level of personal responsibility, they must attempt to prevent, avoid, resist, and recover from any criminal acts they experience. Individuals do have a responsibility to defend themselves, their families, and their home within every reasonable level possible.

Because of the emphasis on street crimes and reliance on taking reasonable actions to prevent becoming a victim, the conservative tendency is favored by many criminal justice system practitioners (Hegger, J., 2015). Clearly, no one can perfectly predict human behavior. Even seasoned law enforcement personnel who receive initial and ongoing training, specific education, and exposure to people who have fallen prey to criminals take extra precautions in their daily living. They do this simply to avoid falling victim to criminal acts. Examples of this can be seen when police back their personal cars into a “pull-in” parking spot so they are facing the roadway, or when they sit in a coffee shop or restaurant facing the entry door to the building. The advantage of these approaches is that it may allow the officer to more quickly respond to a threat. A disadvantage, however, may be that by focusing on preventing their own victimization, they may miss clues to criminal behavior happening in their periphery. This in no way implies that officers are less concerned for the safety of civilians or that they lack compassion for victims.

THE LIBERAL TENDENCY

Another current ideology is the liberal tendency. Victimologists using this ideological construct believe that the scope of analyses needs to extend beyond street crimes and must include white-collar crimes (Hegger, 2015). Another focus of the liberal tendency is on the complex involvement between criminals and victims. In this view, it is recognized that harmful corporate actions or illegal actions that victimize others may be carried out by persons of respectability and power. Unlike conservative tendency advocates, liberal tendency subscribers believe the government should support the needs of crime victims and provide a safety net of resources. This level of support includes crime victims’ compensation and assistance funding, crime insurance subsidization, shelters for victims of rape, domestic violence, and persons in crisis, and free or reduced-fee legal services to members of vulnerable populations.

Proponents of the liberal approach may blame others for an individual’s victimization or circumstances. For example, in a case of credit card fraud or identity theft, advocates of the liberal tendency may believe that the issuing bank card company should have had more protections in place, or that police should have been more actively involved in order to prevent victimization. Upon closer inspection, consumers are reminded to never write their unique PIN on the back of their card or carelessly display identifiable information on their social media postings, which would comport with the conservative tendency.

Society’s preferred method to make victims whole again or help them reintegrate into society is through education meant to instruct them on how to avoid becoming a victim in the future. Victimologists’ concern with this approach is that if too much emphasis is placed on assisting victims after the fact, the prevention piece of the equation may be minimized or forgotten. Some practitioners in the criminal justice system feel that a “victimization bubble” may be created when people wrongly place the blame on others rather than taking any personal responsibility or accountability for their own actions (Cuncic, 2023).

Once they understand that what happened was not their fault, the victim can be helped to find ways to avoid a similar traumatic experience. They are not simply told to “take accountability,” which could be seen as a form of revictimizing (Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, 2014). Instead, they receive psychological support and options for a better future outcome.

THE RADICAL TENDENCY

The radical tendency represents a somewhat blended approach of the conservative and liberal tendencies. Rather than being constrained by street crimes and white-collar crimes, the radical tendency believes in a more comprehensive, overarching picture of criminal behavior (Hegger, 2015). Proponents of the radical tendency believe that the focus on victims ought to be expanded to cover all sources of physical, mental, and economic harm. In this view, an individual needs to be aware of the potential that they may become a victim and thus take reasonable steps to prevent harm from visiting them. However, because the radical tendency expands so deeply into business and industry, blame will be placed on the government or major corporations for not having created stricter guidelines and laws to protect consumers.

While it is generally agreed that corporations, the government, and other entities should be held accountable for their compliance with local, state, and federal regulations, the radical tendency tends to not consider that it may have been the victim’s fault because they decided on their own to forge ahead with a plan to get rich or improve their lot without considering the risks involved. Because the radical tendency seems to be far removed from everyday victimization, there are some clear advantages and disadvantages associated with its approach.

In addition to large entities, corporations, and the government, the radical tendency may also include neighborhood residents, minority communities, and even citizens of countries where atrocities and human rights violations are committed. (Karmen, 2007).

Ideally, a flexible blend of the conservative and liberal tendencies would serve the victim best and allow for proactive measures on their part. Because there is always a certain reasonable level of personal preparedness expected, people are thus informed of their potential to be victimized. The aspect of having systems in place to assist in circumstances where reasonably prepared persons become crime victims, such as those offered in the liberal tendency, would fit nicely in these situations.

Attributions

1. Figure 4.3: There is no excuse for domestic violence. King County Courthouse: In memory of Susana Remerata and her unborn daughter, Phoebe Dizon, Veronica Laureta – who were shot and killed here, March 2, 1995, by Susana’s husband. Seattle, Washington, USA by Wonderlane is released under CC BY 2.0
2. Figure 4.4: MountainBrookPoliceCar-Snow by AuburnPilot in the public domain; Copyright holder released work into the public domain: “I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.”
3. Figure 4.5: Image released under the Pexels License
4. Figure 4.6: Infernal Ballet Amid Pines by Duncan Rawlinson Duncan.co is released under CC BY-NC 2.0