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 separate, currently-accepted ideologies involved in the analysis of victimology on a comprehensive basis (Karmen, 2007). When utilizing the scientific method, it is generally accepted that the following three ideologies influence the discipline of victimology: (1) the conservative tendency, (2) the liberal tendency, and (3) the radical tendency. By having an understanding of the characteristics of each tendency, it becomes easier to appreciate the different directions the discipline could take, based upon which of the ideologies is determined to be most influential.

THE CONSERVATIVE TENDENCY

The Conservative tendency is concerned, primarily, with studying the victims of traditional street crimes (such as those found in the Uniform Crime Report). Therefore, white-collar crimes are generally excluded from study under the Conservative Tendency. The Conservative Tendency maintains that every individual is somewhat responsible for their own victimization, and as such, is ultimately responsible to take reasonable precautions to avoid being victimized. This approach continues to support the notion that individuals must take reasonable care and caution in their daily activities, and as such shall be held accountable for their behavior so that crime victimization will not occur. The people’s actions and the decisions they make 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 experienced. However, it is recognized that individuals 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 has favor among 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 may be facing the roadway, or when they sit in a coffee shop or restaurant facing the entry door to the building. The advantage to these approaches is that it may allow the officer to be more quickly able to 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 nor compassionate in their response to victims.

THE LIBERAL TENDENCY

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

Proponents of the Liberal approach may tend to blame others for their 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 their victimization. Upon closer inspection, consumers are reminded never to write their unique PIN on the back of their card, nor carelessly display identifiable information on their social media postings, which would comport closer to the conservative tendency.

The preferred method of society to deal with these victims in order to “make them whole again” or reintegrate them into society will be through education meant to instruct them on how to avoid becoming a victim in the future. A concern of victimologists with this approach is that if too much emphasis is placed upon assisting victims after the fact, the prevention piece of the equation may be minimized or forgotten. Those who are practitioners within the criminal justice system feel that a “victimization bubble” may be created where people wrongly place the blame on others rather than taking any personal responsibility or accountability for their own actions (Cuncic, 2023).

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

THE RADICAL TENDENCY

The radical tendency represents a somewhat blended approach between the Conservative and Liberal Tendencies. Rather than to be 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 the major corporation for not having created stricter guidelines and laws to protect the consumer from becoming a victim.

While it is generally agreed that corporations, the government, and other entities should be held accountable for being compliant 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 also can articulate to include neighborhood residents, minority communities, and can even extend to citizens of countries where atrocities and human rights violations are committed. (Karmen, 2007).

Ideally, a flexible blend between the Conservative and Liberal Tendencies would serve the victim best, and even allows 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 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