Benjamin mendelssohn victimology theories

Benjamin Mendelsohn’s Theory Of Victimization Daisy M Petersen In 1940s and 1950s victimology, an academic discipline focused on the study of the victim’s perspective of a victim, offender and society had emerged as a sub discipline in the study of criminology. Criminology focused on the study of, criminal’s, non-criminals and identifying the reasons for crimes. Benjamin Mendelsohn is considered one of the founding fathers of the study of victimology along with Hans von Hentig. Both Criminologists had theories and typologies of victims. (Roberson, C., & Wallace, H. 2015) This paper will focus on Benjamin Mendelsohns contribution to the study of victimology, his typology and how it entwines with victim blaming in its early days to our current time. Instead of focusing on the crime committed or the injury of a victim, Benjamin Mendelsohn’s main concern was the victim’s precipitation; to what degree the victim is responsible for their victimization and their cooperation with the criminal justice system. (Dussich, P.J John) Mendelsohn a defence attorney in Romania, realized a need to better understand victims in order to help defend suspects and decrease the criminals responsibility in the crime they had committed. In the late 1930s Mendelson established a series of studies designed to help himself and other defence attorneys prepare for their clients case in a court of law. In 1956 he created a system of classification of victims and placed them into six categories and coined the term “victimology”. These categories were created to display how a victim shares responsibility in crimes committed against them by an offender, they were primarily centered on the guilt of the victim. Victim-offender relationship was one of the most important concepts in victimology, Mendelsohn referred to the relationship between offender and victim as penal couple. (Dussich, John P.J.) Mendelsohns typology gives the impression that he believed no victim is entirely innocent when crimes are inflicted upon them. This impression comes from two facts; first in the six categories of victims only one category is devoted to the innocent. Five categories of victims are in some way or another at fault for their victimization, the idea that most of the victims are at least partially guilty is perceived. Secondly the examples given of “completely innocent" victims are children and the unconscious, the conscious adult does not appear therefore, it is assumed that an adult who is reasonably aware and is the victim of a criminal act must have in same way encouraged it. (Sengstock, Mary C. 1976) Mendelsohn typology of victims in six categories is as follows; The Completely Innocent Victim. This victim may be a child or a completely unconscious person, the victim has no responsibility for their victimization. The Victim with Minor Guilt. Victim because of unintentional actions this victim may be a woman who induces a miscarriage and dies as a result. The Victim Who is as guilty as the Offender. Those whom are an accessory to the crime fall within this category, they actually helped with their victimization The Victim is More Guilty than the Offender. Persons who provoke others to commit a crime. The Guiltiest Victim. Victim acts aggressively and is killed by the accused, who is acting in self defence. The Imaginary Victim. Persons suffering from mental illness/disorders whom believe they are the victims.(Roberson, C., & Wallace, H. 2015) While his earlier work focused mainly on categorizing victims based on their role in criminal acts in 1976 his later scholarship goes beyond victim and offender interaction. Willem H Negal a Dutch criminologist believed that victimology should remain a part of the field of criminology, while Mendelsohn argued for a general multidisciplinary approach that would establish a separate discipline of victimology aimed at reducing human suffering. (Roberson, C., & Wallace, H. 2015) The study of victimology and its theories stem from many areas of research, all contributing to past and present studies. One leading area was the feminist movement; it brought to our attention a large spectrum of problems facing women. One of Mendelsohns concentrations was rape, and the feminist movement found that sexual violence was based on 3 concepts; power (a man’s control over a woman) sexuality and social control (Roberson, C., & Wallace, H. 2015). Feminist challenged ideas that a women was “asking for it” by dressing provocatively or appearing seductive. These ideas turned the blame on the victims of sexual violence rather than those who committed the crime. In 1972 the first rape crisis center was opened in the United States for women who were victims of crime. (Roberson, C., & Wallace, H. 2015) During the 1960s and 1970s the US Supreme Court established certain principals regarding the constitutional rights of individuals. Passing laws that gave individuals rights such as the voting rights act, which prohibited the denial or restriction of people to vote. This act prohibited literacy test and poll taxes that had earlier prevented African Americans from voting. Many more civil right laws were passed including the civil rights act of 1964 (equal employment opportunities act) which prohibits employment discrimination based on colour, race, religion, sex and national origin (Civil Rights) With society becoming increasingly conservative and concerned with the increase in crime rates, the public was also made more aware of the trauma suffered by victims. People wanted harsher punishment for those who violated the law. (Roberson, C., & Wallace, H. 2015) Placing criminals in prisons was seen as justice for the victims. While the victims’ rights movements were gaining strength and organizations began to put pressure on the criminal justice system to bring about changes. Victims of crime were volunteering in victim assistance programs, using their experience’s to help others. As the public spoke up, their voice was heard and the government established commissions to study crime and its consequences. The government established a national crime survey to collect information about criminal offences that concerned the public and law enforcement agencies such as robbery, rape and assault (Roberson, C., & Wallace, H. 2015) The government also established a law enforcement assistance administration (LEAA) this agency provided funds for victim-witness programs. In 1974 the LEAA formed the National Organization for Victim Assistance (Roberson, C., & Wallace, H. 2015) which is still in operation today. Mendelsohn recognized that victims were largely ignored, disrespected and even abused by the system. Thus, he began to seek ways to protect and help victims by proposing the creation of victim assistance clinics, international organizations, and special research institutes. Like most of his associates, Mendelsohn’s early work with victimology was mostly about crime victims and their relationship with their offenders; however, as he began to develop his ideas, his focus centered more on just the victim. He the realized that victimology should be about the concern for all types of victims, from crimes, traffic accidents, disasters, etc. Mendelsohn referred to this broader typology as general victimology (Dussich, P.J John) His five categories are as follows; A Criminal- a person who suffers at the hand of a criminal. Ones Self- Victims of their own actions, for example a person who attempts to end their life by suicide or engages in other risky, self destructive behaviour. The victim may suffer from a mental illness or disability. The Social Environment- Victims of social oppression and class discrimination, a person who is denied a job promotion because of their race would fall under this category, so would victims of genocide and war. Technology- Victims who are injured as a result of society’s reliance upon scientific innovations such as industrial pollution or nuclear accidents like ones that occurred in Fukushima and Chernobyl. The Natural Environment- These victims are affected by natural disasters, event or “acts of god” they are not considered traditional victims and are not classified as crime victims Hurricane Katrina that cause mass destruction in New Orleans caused victims within the natural environment. (Bumgarner, J B. 2008) Mendelsohns early theory focused on the fact that a victim always had some responsibility for the crime inflicted upon them unless they were a child or unconscious person, the theory is essentially victim blaming. Victim blaming is an act of devaluing that occurs when the victim of a crime is held responsible for all or part of the crime committed against them. Some victims are misunderstood leading to misconceptions about the victims, perpetrators and the act itself. The confusion may lead people to believe the victim deserved what happened to them or that they may be low self esteemed individuals looking to attract attention by seeking out and submitted to violence. (Victim Blaming in Canada, 2016) Victim blaming, the concept of victim precipitation is harmful to victims as it is consistent with societys belief that we live in a “just world”. A large proportion of society believes people get what they deserve.(Moriaty, L. 2008)This is a dangerous way of thinking causes a false sense of security that if one does no harm to others no harm will be inflicted upon them, it also prevents people from reporting crimes committed against them for the fear of being judged and witnesses not being willing to testify in courts. Crime is often about violence power and control; it needs to be understood that no one deserves the crimes inflicted upon them. The victim blaming approach is not effective at resolving problems, protecting a victim or the future generation from the continuing cycle of abuse. The concept of victim precipitation has been the main focus to the study of victimology but it causes difficulty for victims by causing further victimization to those who blame themselves or may have experienced victim blaming from society or the criminal justice system. (Moriarty, L.2008) The study of victimology has the power to change our understanding of crime and victimization, but it is unlikely to happen unless the field changes. It is important that we shift our focus from the victim to the perpetrator to ensure the offender takes responsibility for the crime committed. References Bumgarner, J B. (2008) Emergency Management, A Reference Handbook, Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO Inc. Civil Rights: Laws and History (Copyright © 2013) FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. Retrieved from: http://files.findlaw.com/pdf/civilrights/civilrights.findlaw.com_civil-rights-overview_civil-rights-law-and-history.pdf Dussich, John P.J The Challanges of Victimology, Past, Present and Future.Visting experts papers, Resource material series No.81 Retrieved from: http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No81/No81_09VE_Dussich.pdf Moriarty, Laura J. (2008) Controversies in Victimology (second edition) Newark, NJ: Matthew Bender and Company Inc. Roberson, C., & Wallace, H.(2015) Introduction and History of Victimology. Victimology. Legal, Psychological, and Social Perspectives (fourth edition) (pp.2-23) United States of America: Pearson Education Inc. Sengstock, Mary C. (1976) The Culpable Victim in Mendelsohns Typology. ERIC Document Reproduction Service. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED140138.pdf Victim Blaming in Canada (July, 2016) The Canadian Resource Center for Victims of Crime. Retrieved from: https://crcvc.ca/publications/ 8 MENDELSOHNS THEORY