1

Victimology in Criminology for Ideology

By Randy Gonzalez
 2

Victimology in Criminology for Ideology

By Randy Gonzalez
In the diverse realm of speculative analysis in regard to human behavioral issues,
criminology is the philosophical quest to study crime, criminals and crime control measures. In
addition, criminology endeavors to explore and analyze the nature, causes and consequences of
various forms of illicit behaviors. From many aspects, the field of study encompasses a diversity
of practical and academic disciplines. Among these, criminology utilizes various perspectives from
philosophies such as sociology and psychology. At this point, clashes erupt.
While many argue their point view as a “science”, others will counter with direct and immediate
dissent. In criminology, for instance, there are two major schools of thought, the classical and the
positivistic world views. Among an even smaller number of criminologists, typically the classical
school, some assert the discipline is a “pseudoscience” and not a real science as in astronomy,
biology, chemistry and physics. Scientific authenticity seriously pursues provability.
Additionally, within the framework of a tiny eccentric group of classicists, who have been real-
world practitioners (i.e. law enforcement, corrections and probation officers), the assertion is often
radical as to the non-science of the field. More often, reference is made to the skilled art and craft
of practitioner driven capabilities, versus theoretical conjecture. To that end, this is the standpoint
here in this writing, criminology like sociology and psychology, is a pseudoscience. And it
maintains the non-science attribution to those studies in academic spheres.
Victimology by contrast, within the broad structure of criminology, is the investigative analysis
that focuses primarily on victimization. Assessment of the offender and the society of context also
come into play. As a distinct discipline for inquiry, like criminology, the exploration of human
behavior utilizes a range of schools of thought. Of significant relevance is the ideological
foundation that may animate and otherwise define the scope of inquiry. For criminologists, what
is usually characteristic in the scheme of victimology studies are the ideological assertions.
For instance, to give “crime” an anthropomorphic attribute alerts a classist that the point of
view is leaning toward the positivistic perspective. That is to say, the diversion becomes one of
the crime is at “fault”, along with society in general, and not the criminal who victimized the
victim. Sometimes, this reconstruction suggests the criminal as victim. From there, a wide variety
of excuses allow the criminal to eventually escape culpability. Yet, to the classical theorist, who
may or may not be a practitioner, responsibility is critical to lawful enforcement.
 3

Nonetheless, ideology underscores the essentiality of the particular school of philosophical

inquiry. For example, in the classical school, free will is a major tenet of investigative assessment.
In terms of criminal accountability, rational choice for the amative satiation of personal gain,
versus whatever risk might be minimized, reflects the ideation of individual proclivities.
Intentional harm to a targeted victim aims to gratify selfishness of the perpetrator. Gain minus risk,
or even escalation of risk for the thrill of it all, depends on the thinking processes of the individual.
As a “cost-benefit” assessment, the infliction of some form of victimization concerns the potential
reward to the criminal. At the same time, the malefactor is selfish.
In his or her refusal to self-evolve, the world view is one of victimizing others for the pleasure
of themselves. Becoming a well-differentiated, mature and productive member of society, the
criminal remains satisfied with his or her status quo. This can be at any level of the political and
socio-economic strata. While many often confuse “crime” with the lower levels of criminality, as
in murder, rape and robbery, other more devastating forms occur. For the classicist, it would be
viewed as naïve, ill-informed and narrow minded, to focus only on so-called street crimes. A much
broader scope of what constitutes a “victim” should be analyzed.
Across globe, political, commercial and organized criminality accounts for an exceptionally
higher and more damaging volume of crimes and victimizations. From a freely ideated
multidimensional rationality, the criminal claims his or her advantage over others. In so doing, he
or she expresses a disregard for the “rules of civility” and legal observance. Personal gain is at the
core of what once was called the “hedonistic calculus”. Contemplations to inflict victimization is
premeditated from a posture of malice aforethought for intentional harm.
Skill set, abilities and capability circulate within the conceptualization of the intended
perpetration, depending upon the learning capacity of the criminal. While one might rob a bank,
another might embezzle from the bank he or she works for. Still another may collude with others
to bring down and entire economy to cover the clandestine thievery they have committed. In
addition, an eco-criminal might pollute and exploit an environmental setting for profit.
At work within the thinking is the self-centeredness of the person, whereby subjective
validation assumes the right to do something regardless of anyone else. Each day, across social
media, often reinforced by 24/7 “news reporting”, egregious fallacies of inference perpetrate
fraudulent poorly formed belief systems that do social damage. In a devolving culture, creative
productivity to ensure social advancement may be in a regressive trend.
 4

With an unevolving slant, most people do not change very much in terms of their thinking
processes. There are exceptions of course, as with everything, and a few, perhaps roughly about
20% to 25%, work very diligently in terms of becoming a differentiated lifeform. As centuries
come and go and pass from generation to another, divergent viewpoints attempted to explain why
some people are victims and others are victimizers. In studying the human inclination toward
criminality, as to victim versus predator for instance, theoretical constructs of one sort or another
try to offer a range of possibilities. Controversies arise among the various perspectives.
As mentioned earlier, it is the position here that the typical trinity of academia, criminology,
psychology and sociology are viewed as versions of pseudoscience. As such, among the
dissensions with regard to investigators, at least two competing camps endeavor to gain insight
into the variety of maladaptive human behaviors. Among these researchers, adherents and
practitioners of the various schools of thought, ideological claims can be quite divisive.
Outside the realm of real science as indicated previously, there are those who desire for
whatever personal agenda to be viewed as “scientists” doing the work of “science” and advancing
the scope of “scientific knowledge”. By contrasts, typically those in the practical sphere of human
behavior, consider criminology as well as the associated fields of study to be pseudoscience. That
is to say, investigative efforts are directed toward developing the artistic capabilities for practical
application in the real world of human interactions. Science strives for authenticity.
In the history of “victimology”, with a slight departure from the realm criminology, back around
the early 1950’s, slightly post World War II, psychiatrists and psychologists sought relevancy in
the complex world of crime and criminals. Alleging the need for a “scientific” study of
victimization, sociologists, likewise needing justification for assorted philosophies, leaped into the
vast complexity of human behavioral conflicts. Even though a long time prior, say around the late
1700’s, classical criminology asserted the rights and dignity of people to be protected from harm.
Like counterparts in related pseudosciences, classical criminology claimed the efficacy of free
will, individual self-reliance and rational choices for action taken.
Given the variety of psycho-socio-psychic theories, some researchers claimed the “scientific”
basis for studying victims and victimizations. Doing what academicians like to do, by categorizing
and labeling as many things as possible, a range of typologies emerged. Early theories of
“victimology”, between 1930’s and 1940’s, could be viewed as attempts to organize defenses for
the perpetrators, and otherwise mitigate excuses for court related criminal cases.
 5

Regardless of the academician versus practitioner intrigue, flashing forward in time to post-
modern America, the influence of victimology carries over into a number of areas critical to the
diverse field of criminology. For instance, one of the critical investigative processes of major
concern involves the abuse, abduction and exploitation of children and other underage persons.
From abuse and abduction, to child pornography, sexual exploitation and sex trafficking, a
significant number of children are at risk every years. One U.N. organization cites that the number
of child victims has increased nearly 30% over previous years.
Estimates according to a world-wide investigative body, suggest that globally there are
anywhere between 2 million and 4 million victims. That number could be more. Targeting
potential victims occurs over a broader scale of victimization. Additionally, in other studies of
international criminality, there is the estimation that about 150 million girls and nearly 75 million
boys, under the age of 18, experienced some form of forced sexual violence. In response, vigilant
enforcement of laws are vital, with serious investment in law enforcement resources.
While violence against children is one aspect, targeted victimization includes a variety of illicit
inflictions. Stalking for instance affects a number of people every year. As an intentional
premeditated criminal activity, stalking is sometimes referred to as a pattern of illicit behavior
whereby the perpetrator persists on intruding into another person’s life. For the criminal, it is his
or her unwanted repetitious actions that harm another’s personal safety. In similar ways, bullying
comes into the picture as well. To harass another, the perpetrator can be very creative, as well as
deceptive, employing a variety of inflictions. Al such behavior is intentional.
Depending on the state in which the illicit act is committed, enforcement may invoke a
misdemeanor or a felony. Additionally, the victim’s age could be a factor regarding the degree of
punishment that could be imposed. In view of the classical school of criminology, rational choice
on the part of the criminal results in the intentional infliction of harm upon the victim. It is a matter
calculated premeditated perpetration in terms of cost and benefit to the victimizer. While other
viewpoints may focus on biological or psychiatric perspectives, as potentially mitigating or
excusatory, classical or rational choice theories centralize direction action.
In the diverse realms of victimology, confusion may complicate investigative analysis by the
broad basis for by which the public understands who the victim is. Media pundits, as well as
politicians, often lend their lack of expertise by rendering superficial and inexperienced opinions
in areas of criminal behavior. Academicians likewise follow right behind them.
 6

From the standpoint of classical criminology, victimology as a subset of practical inquiry relates
to a criminal committing a crime against another, where the latter become the victim. In this view,
it is not the reverse. When excuses are concocted or otherwise fabricated in “defense” of the
perpetrator, a form of secondary victimization has been inflicted upon the real victim. Nonetheless,
in a pretentious, uninformed and unevolving culture, where political correctness replaces a fact
driven mode of logical reasoning, fantasy supplants the truth. Frequently, the counterproductive
simplistic notions of “victimization” on the side of the criminal, degrades relevance.
Arguably, the notion of victimology theory resonates the perspective that someone is a victim
of something. In mainstream news reporting, social media, selfie site sharing and so on, each day
is a speculation on victimization somewhere. For the practitioner investigator, the one who has
been in the fight so to speak, the issue become determining if a crime has been committed. And, if
so, what law had been violated? Dealing with the hardcore everyday actual and potentially violent
human exchanges, as in those of the first responder is different from other perspectives.
For instance, the armchair researcher, as in the not so hallowed halls of academia, typically and
generally has a divergent view from that of the police officer. Not in all cases, but generally, those
who conduct research in safe and secure realms of detachment tend to broaden the scope of
victimization. Sometimes the critic, the accuser, and the dissident social activist complainer has
little real-world connectivity to horrors of inflicted human depravity. As bias influences
conclusions, and prejudicial inclinations come from the complexity of thinking, analytical
outcomes are often tainted by the self-interests of personal subjectivity.
In terms of statutory definition, whereby an illicit violation can be deduced, some state laws
assert the victim is one who has become the object of an offending act. An offense occurs and is
perpetrator against another, of which a law can be identified. Otherwise, outside that spectrum,
what is the allegation being made as to an alleged state of “victimhood”? Regardless, in the post-
modern claim, the criminal is a criminal because of his or her own “victimization”. That
assessment would not be supported by adherents to a classical view of criminology.
For the criminal, victimology theory can be used to the extent necessary to exonerate him or
her. And for the advancement of personal agenda, others may rally around the criminal in support
of erroneous conjecture. Assuming the “victim stance”, the offender can easily conjure a storyline
to claim others are the blame, and he or she is not responsible. As rational instigators of illicit
inflictions, criminality is purposeful, rational and premeditated.