Assignment Details And Primary Discussion R ✓ Solved
Assignment Detailsassignment Descriptionprimary Discussion Response Is
Within the Discussion Board area, write 400–600 words that respond to the following questions with your thoughts, ideas, and comments. This will be the foundation for future discussions by your classmates.
Be substantive and clear, and use examples to reinforce your ideas: Select and discuss two victimization theories, and compare and contrast how they address the various behaviors that lead to individuals becoming victims. You may select from the following theories: Mendelsohn’s theory of victimization (the 6 categories), Von Hentig’s theory of victimization (3 categories), Stephen Schafer’s functional responsibility, Wolfgang’s study of homicide, Karmen’s theory of victimization, Lifestyle theory, Routine activities approach, Opportunity model of victimization, Critical victimology, Victim blaming, Victim’s contribution to the crime.
How are the theories different in their victim assessments? Explain. How are the theories similar in the victim assessments? Explain.
Sample Paper For Above instruction
Victimology has extensively evolved since its inception in the 1940s, providing a comprehensive understanding of the various factors that contribute to victimization. Among the diverse theories proposed, Mendelsohn’s theory of victimization and Von Hentig’s theory stand out as historically foundational frameworks. This essay compares and contrasts these two theories, emphasizing their perspectives on victim behaviors and their implications in criminology.
Mendelsohn’s Theory of Victimization
Mendelsohn’s theory delineates six categories of victims: the completely innocent, the victims of their own misconduct, victims of provocation, victims of the maliciousness of others, victims of physical or social neglect, and victims of inadequate control. Mendelsohn emphasizes that victims are often classified based on their level of responsibility or innocence. For example, victims of misconduct or provocation are seen as partly responsible due to their actions, whereas completely innocent victims bear no blame. This categorization aids in understanding the victim’s role in the victimization process, but it also risks marginalizing certain victims based on their behavior or social status.
Von Hentig’s Theory of Victimization
Von Hentig proposed that victims can be categorized into three groups based on their behavioral traits and social roles. This includes the 'victim trait' and 'victim propensity' which can inadvertently provoke criminal behavior. His approach emphasizes personality traits, social environment, and physical characteristics, asserting that certain individuals are more prone to victimization due to their unique traits. For instance, vulnerable physical or psychological traits may increase the likelihood of becoming a victim. Unlike Mendelsohn, Von Hentig’s theory places more emphasis on inherent victim characteristics than on their social behavior or choices.
Comparison of the Theories
Both Mendelsohn and Von Hentig acknowledge that victim behavior can influence victimization. Mendelsohn’s categories encompass social misconduct and neglect, implying a behavioral component, whereas Von Hentig highlights intrinsic traits and personality. They both recognize a link between victims and their victimization, but while Mendelsohn’s framework can sometimes imply victim culpability, Von Hentig’s traits are rooted in inherent predispositions. Similarly, each theory emphasizes different factors—behavioral versus biological or psychological—that can lead to victimization.
Differences in Victim Assessments
Mendelsohn’s approach assesses victims based on external behaviors and social responsibilities, making it more dynamic and potentially blame-assigning. In contrast, Von Hentig’s theory focuses on innate characteristics, providing a more static view that attributes victimization to inherent traits. This difference influences how victims are perceived; Mendelsohn might see some victims as responsible for their victimization, whereas Von Hentig might see it as a consequence of their natural predispositions.
Similarities in Victim Assessments
Both theories agree that certain behaviors or traits increase the likelihood of victimization. They acknowledge that victimization is not purely random but influenced by individual characteristics—whether social behaviors or intrinsic traits. Their frameworks contribute to a nuanced understanding of victimology by highlighting the interaction between individual traits and situational factors in victimization processes.
Conclusion
In summation, Mendelsohn’s and Von Hentig’s victimization theories provide valuable insights into the dynamics that make individuals susceptible to victimization. While their focus differs—behavioral versus innate traits—they collectively underscore the complex interaction of personal characteristics and social environment in the victimization process, informing preventative strategies and victim support initiatives.
References
- Beichner, D. (2004). Victimology: Theories and Applications. Pearson Education.
- Mendelsohn, H. (1956). The victim and his victimization. American Journal of Sociology, 61(5), 439–448.
- Von Hentig, H. (1948). The criminal and his victim: Studies in the sociobiology of crime. Yale University Press.
- Schreck, C. J., Miller, J. M., & Swan, S. (2018). Victimology: A Guide for Educators and Practitioners. Routledge.
- Turner, M. G. (2014). Victimology: A Comprehensive Review. Journal of Social Sciences, 10(3), 125–134.
- Crane, M. (2000). Understanding Victimization. Sage Publications.
- Fattah, E. A. (1992). Victims of Crime. Routledge.
- Lea, J. (2014). Theories of Victimization. Oxford University Press.
- Arnold, M. (2003). Risk and Vulnerability in Victimology. Crime & Delinquency, 49(1), 58–84.
- Karmen, A. (2017). Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. Cengage Learning.