INTRODUCTION

Victim precipitation is a criminology theory that analyzes how a victim's

interaction with an offender may contribute to the crime being committed.
The theory is most commonly associated with crimes like homicide, rape,
assault, and robbery.

The phrase 'victim precipitation' was first introduced by 20th century

criminologist Marvin Wolfgang, in his article entitled Victim Precipitated
Criminal Homicide. In this theory, Wolfgang describes the victim as the first
in the homicide drama to use physical force against his subsequent slayer.
A review of the explicit and the implicit uses of the concept "victim precipitation" in
criminology and the criminaljustice system is presented. The pervasiveness of the
"ideology of victim precipitation" indicates that it is much more fundamental to the
official American justice system and its crime prevention programs and strategies
than is generally recognized or suspected. An analysis of the various contexts in
which the concept is utilized or implied suggests that it is preceded, either directly
or indirectly, by a particular political judgment about the nature of crime and its
control or prevention. Specifically, criminological and justice system uses of
"victim precipitation" assume consistently that crime is individually generated and,
therefore, can only be individually prevented. At least two repressive ideological
effectsflowfrom these assumptions of "victim precipitation": (1) an extreme form of
victim-blame where the victims of crime are said to be a primary cause of their
own victimization, and (2) underlying supportfor ineffective official crime
prevention strategies and programs (in reality, "victim prevention" strategies and
programs) that instruct citizens to take responsibility for their own criminal
victimization ("dress less seductively," "leave your lights on," "lock or bar your
window," etc.). The "ideology of victim precipitation" by blaming the individual
crime victim only serves to divert attention and resources away from the structural
causes of crime and the structural changes required by a less criminogenic
society, and renders the existing social, political and economic orders more
legitimate. In this way, the social relations required by capitalist society are
reproduced by this ideology. It is concluded that the ideology of victim
precipitation has no place in a progressive criminology or progressive criminal
justice system that attempts to identify how crime is generated and prevented
structurally. This criminology and criminal justice practice attempts to spot those
social, political, and economic, institutional sources of crime in American society
that must be transformed if crime is to be significantly controlled or prevented.
 victim precipitation relates to how and why crime happens. While most
theories focus on the acts and intentions of the offender, victim precipitation
seeks to understand the interaction between the victim and the offender.

Under this theory, the victim is viewed an active participant in the crime. This
happens in two ways: first, the victim is the participant in the crime who acts
first; and second, the victim encourages or provokes the offender to commit
the crime. These are the primary components of the victim precipitation
theory1.

Definition of victimology

The Victim Precipitation Theory

The first of these, the victim precipitation theory, views victimology from the standpoint that
the victims themselves may actually initiate, either passively or actively, the criminal act that
ultimately leads to injury or death. During passive precipitation, the victim unconsciously
exhibits behaviors or characteristics that instigate or encourage the attack. Siegel (2006) lists
job promotions, job status, successes, love interests, and the like as examples of these
unconscious behaviors and characteristics. Additionally, political activists, minority groups,
those of different sexual orientations, and other individuals pursuing alternate lifestyles may
also find themselves as targets of violence due to the inadvertent threat they pose to certain
individuals of power.
Essentially, the victim precipitation theory focuses on the idea that passive precipitation of
violence is a result of a power struggle. A politician may feel threatened by an activist group
leader because his action draws attention to negative aspects of his personality and actions
that will, or may cause, a loss of power in society. This sort of passive precipitation may also
be present when the victim is not even aware of the existence of the attacker.
In this instance a new employee may push up the corporate ranks quickly, threatening long-
time employees; or a transexual may be the victim of crime due to their existence
"threatening" the beliefs and/or ideas of another individual or group of individuals. The latter
is a good example of a hate crime, in which victims are often unaware of the individuals that
perpetrate the crime, yet their actions and/or characteristics trigger the crime.
Active precipitation, on the other hand, is the opposite of the afore-described. Victimization
under this theory occurs through the threatening or provocative actions of the victim. One of
the most controversial points of this theory is the idea that women who are raped actively
contributed in some way, either through provocative dress, a relationship, or suggested
consent of intimacy (Siegel, 2006). Because of this viewpoint, it is hard to convict an accused
rapist who has had some form of relationship with the accused, or one that was behaving
provocatively or suggestively. When dealing with this theory we must ask ourselves whether
or not it is really okay to blame the occurrence of a crime on the victim. This is especially
true in cases of rape when flirtation may be present, yet there is no consent to sexual
intercourse.
1
Victim Precipitation in Legal Proceedings
Perhaps the most danger of aligning victim precipitation and victim blame comes in the
form of legal attempts to understand victim and offender roles. Whether we view
attempts to mitigate the offender’s responsibility or culpability as victim blaming, the
reality is that such examinations are allowable under the law. This may be in the form of
the so-called partial defences, such as provocation, of the full defences, such as self
defence. If there is a problem with doing this from the point of view of understanding
the various roles in the crime, then it would be reasonable to assert that your problem is
with the law, not with the theory of victim precipitation per se. While this may be a
problem for some, the outcome of any cases will likely hang on a large number of
factors, only one of which is any identified precipitation. What is more, it could be said
that considering the actions of the victim is only fair, giving the common but-for
argument used in legal discourse. That is, but for the actions of the victim, the offender
wouldn’t have acted in this way/the crime would not have occurred.

Conclusion
Victim precipitation has been used in our understanding of victimisation for over sixty
years or so now, during which time it has been studied and criticised. Research shows
that precipitation occurs with some frequency, which one would consider enough of a
reason to continue with study of the phenomenon. Critics, however, argue that
precipitation is tantamount to victim blaming and that, at the very least, use of the term
and the theory behind it should stop. The purpose of this article and the works done by
this author and others is to show that victim precipitation is still useful in
understanding crime, and that beyond concerns about blame, may actually provide a
positive contribution to reducing crime and victimisation. At the very least we cannot
profess to truly know what happened in a crime unless a full accounting of both the
victim and offender behaviour has been undertaken. Like it or not, victim precipitation
will provide part of this understanding.