Clinical Implications of Victimological Theory

Although victimology as a field is in its infancy and is undergoing definition, several theories of victimization that have implications for clinical practice have already been published. Several are specific and segmented, but one theory relates victimization to its broader cultural, social organizational-institutional, interactional and personality contexts Richard A. Ball presents a "Theory of the Victimological Cycle," while the late Michael J Hindelang, Michael Gottfredson, and James Garofalo discuss "A Theory of Personal Criminal Victimization," modified in 1987 by James Garofalo. Against this backdrop, Richard D. Knudten offers insight into his "Dynamic Theory of Victimization 1 2." After their characteristics are identified, implications for the growing field of clinical sociology will be discussed The Context of Victimological Theorizing Development of the science of victimology has been stimulated by demand for action to alleviate personal and social needs. Early calls for a science of victimology came from such diverse sources as Beniamin Mendelsohn, a Romanian-Israeli lawyer; Hans von Hentig, a sociological victimologist; and Stephen Schafer, a Hungarian law professor turned American criminologist-victimologist. Marvin Wolfgang provided impetus by his seminal work in criminal homicide and victimization in Philadelphia (1958), while others added insight in discussions of offender derogation of victims and the need for justice systems to restore offender and victim equity (Sykes and Matza, 1957; Lamborn, 1968). Ezzat Fattah (1979) argued that criminal behavior is dynamic and thus can only be explained by a dynamic examination of antisocial conduct and the processes of stigmatizing, legitimating, desensitizing and stereotyping of the victim.