IndexIntroductionHistorical OverviewParadigmsTheoriesVictim PrecipitationLifestyle PatternApproach to Routine ActivitiesConclusionWorks CitedIntroductionIt has been identified through a variety of academics who as time passes through the time period where the victimology or the victim has not been described in a single precise definition based mainly on the fact that there are many distinct causes that cause a character to be called sick, for example when looking at a definition of victim from one point from a criminal legalistic point of view, the From the victimologists' point of view and from the constructionist point of view, these definitions vary from each other but ultimately they all communicate about a victim. The term victimology is not new. In fact, Benjamin Mendelsohn used it for the first time in 1947 to explain the clinical aspect of crime patients. Victimology is considered a subfield of criminology, and the two fields have much in common. Just as criminology is the examination of criminals: what they do, why they do it, and how criminal justice responds to them. Victimology is the knowledge of victims, it is the knowledge of the reasons for victimization, its outcomes, how the criminal justice system incorporates and assists victims, and how other elements of society, including the media, treat victims of crimes. In this undertaking the following dialogue can position the label of victim in a broader framework of social construction, firstly I can talk about the records of victimology or the sufferer, secondly I will talk about the paradigms and paradoxes of the sufferer, thirdly I am able to talk take a look at the theories on victimology in addition to the sensible application of the theories in a case and it will be followed using the conclusion. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayHistorical OverviewHistorically, the Latin term Victima was used to explain individuals or animals whose lives were destined to be sacrificed to please a deity. Now it did not necessarily mean pain or struggle, but only a sacrificial function. In the nineteenth century, the word victim became linked to the notion of harm or loss in terms of tendency (Spalek 2006). Within the modern criminal justice system, the word sufferer has come to describe any individual who has suffered harm, loss, or trouble due to the illegal action of some other individual, institution, or business (Karmen 2004). The term victimology was first mentioned in 1949, in a book on murderers written by forensic psychiatrist Fredric Wertham. It has been used to describe the practice of people being harmed by criminals (Karmen 2007). Today, as defined in our Preface, victimology generally refers to the clinical study of victims and victimization, which includes relationships between victims and offenders, investigators, courts, correctional institutions, the media, and social action (Kamren 1990). The term victimology was coined in the mid-1900s. Crime has evolved into a path that occurred before this time; therefore, humans were victims long before scientific observation of crime began. Although no longer scientifically studied, victims have been identified as harmed by crimes and their position within the criminal justice system has developed over the years. Before and at some point in the middle of a long period (roughly from the 5th to the 16th century), the weight of the machinery of justice, however casual, fell on the victim. While someone or property has beendamaged, it has become all that the victim and his circle of relatives seek justice. This was generally dismissed through retaliation. The justice system operated under the precept of the Lex talionis, an eye for an eye. A cheater might be punished because he deserved it, and the punishment might be identical to the harm caused. Punishment based on these notions is regular with punishment. Early penal codes incorporated such standards. Hammurabi's code turned into the idea of ​​order and into reality Babylon. Within the code, restoring fairness between the offender and the victim has become threadbare. The first response to the crime is said to have focused on the victim, now not the country. This focus on the patient continued until the industrial revolution. Paradigms Paradigm is mostly believed to be a bigger word than just "theory". Kuhn (1962) defines a paradigm as “an elementary picture of the topic within a science,” while a “theory” essentially describes a selected development. In relation to victimology, each of the three main paradigms studied also speaks of "theoretical perspectives") and represents a precise reading of society in relation to issues relevant to victimology. Each of the three major victimological paradigms will be reviewed. The primary paradigm is the positivist or law or order paradigm, the historical history of the paradigms says that law and beliefs are essentially based on conservative criminology, the roots of which cross lower back well before the 1970s . However, it is probably correct to say that regulation and ideological order have an effect on victims of crime. The rules pretty much began around the time the victims' "movement" began to impact criminal justice rules in the United States in the early 1970s. There are particular crimes that arise from the paradigm, firstly with admiration of the definition of "sufferer" against the law, this is narrowly conceived, reserved mostly for people who have suffered private crimes of violence and crimes against property made specifically by the way of strangers. Such crimes are typically attacks, murders, rapes and thefts. These are crimes that immediately create a strong concern of criminality and can be used by defenders of law and order to exploit the emotions and fears of the general public (McShane & Williams 1992:35). An important complaint of the ideology is that while proponents of this perspective have made strong political and emotional use of the fascination with the suffering of those suffering from crime (Grabosky 1987), and this has served the proponents' goals, the interests of the sufferers themselves were not always served. This is because there is little evidence that the adjustments instituted to date are preferred by victims and are actually benefiting them. The second paradigm is the new paradigm, the main ideas of the radical paradigm are demarginalization, preventive deterrence and minimal use of prison. The history of this paradigm says that in most Anglo-Saxon countries between the late 1960s and early 1980s, conservative forces often used victim rhetoric to easily develop their own positions and ideologies. Given that progressive criminologists no longer took an effective approach in this era, it is not surprising that a new paradigm emerged to counter both prevailing criminological paradigms. In England this became known as "left realism" or "radical left realism", and many victimologists also refer to the paradigm as "radical" victimology ("idealists" discoverreferences to the complicated “radical”). Radical victimology questions the role of the country and the law in defining the social creation of the relationship between victim and transgressor and is further divided into paradigms which are the pathetic sufferer used by feminists who suffer violence from the boy and the heroic sufferer. paradigm means prisoners of conscience, those idealistic and courageous people like Nelson Mandela. The third paradigm is the important paradigm, until the 1980s, of reaction to law and order. Labeled as ideology, this paradigm was largely founded on the new paradigm of criminology, which advanced during the 1950s and was based mainly on theories Marxist. Radical criminology could now be a multifaceted, expert and subtle paradigm, using more recent theoretical views, along with the crucial concept of prison, modernism of subjugation, colonialism of subjugation and various types of feminist concept. Perhaps a higher label nowadays is “Critical Criminology” (White & Haynes 1996: failure 11). As discussed below, an extra pragmatic strand of the “idealist” paradigm was articulated within 1990s victimology, which has been termed “crucial victimology” (Mawby & Walklate 1994). This paradigm considers crime not as a product of pathological individuals, according to the positivist paradigm, but largely as the result of social inequalities. It says that unemployment, poverty and racism provide the reasons for crime, this paradigm also disagrees with the law and order ideology's emphasis on individual duty, and instead argues that it is not the individuals willing to take on the duty. for crime, but instead for society as a whole. In this way, they also question law and order with the concept of autonomy. The paradigm holds that any step towards the abolition or massive reduction of the power of the criminal justice system (which includes police and prisons), is flawed, because it will result in more lawlessness and is a sign of ethical weakness. Theories have been developed to offer factors for variations in victimization risks and for the clustering of victimization in positive areas and among certain agencies (Williams & McShane, 1994:223). To promote greater knowledge of sexual harassment and rape of female students in tertiary institutions, it is necessary to make a disapproving evaluation of applicable fashions and procedures, especially the idea of ​​victim precipitation, lifestyle model and approach of routine activity. Victim Precipitation The first systematic approach to looking at victim involvement in crime was conducted in the late 1950s by Marvin Wolfgang. The time period he introduced, “sick rush,” has become a famous descriptor for all predatory crimes with direct contact (e.g., murder, attack, forcible rape, robbery). Although applied to murder, victim precipitation is limited to those cases in which "the victim is the first in the murder drama to resort to bodily pressure against the subsequent murderer" (Wolfgang 1958, p. 252; see also Wolfgang 1957). they typically involve evidence of how a character's behavior may also contribute to their victimization, and the idea is most commonly associated with crimes such as murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Like all criminological theories, patient precipitation concerns how and why crime occurs. While most theories focus on the acts and intentions of the perpetrator, sufferer precipitation seeks to understand the interaction between the sufferer and thetransgressor. According to this principle, the victim is considered an active part of the crime. This happens in several ways: first, the victim is the first-acting participant in the crime; and second, the victim encourages or provokes the offender to commit the crime. These are the main components of the patient's idea of ​​precipitation. Lifestyle Model Lifestyle Version One of the most popular fads that explain differential risks of victimization is the lifestyle exposure version developed by Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo in 1978. The Lifestyle Quitting Factor The exposure model of personal victimization is that the probability that a character can be victimized depends on a brilliant quantity in the character's lifestyle. In general, lifestyle can be defined as “patterned methods in which people channel their time and efforts into playing a variety of sports” (Fattah, 1991:319). Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo (1978:241), however, define lifestyle as “habitual daily sports, both professional (painting, school, maintaining residence) and recreational activities.” People who play sports every day can obviously bring them into contact with crime, or simply increase the chances of crime in which victims enjoy themselves. Time spent in a single person's home usually decreases risk for victims, while time spent in public settings increases risk changes in lifestyles. socially decided through people's collective responses or variations to various positional expectations and structural constraints. Both ascribed and realized reputation traits (e.g., age, sex, race, earnings, marital popularity, education, employment) are vital correlates of predatory crime because these reputation attributes carry with them shared expectations about appropriate behavior and structural barriers that everyone allows and limits their own behavioral choices. Adherence to these cultural and structural expectations leads to the status quo of recurring activity patterns and associations with similarly situated others. These lives and associations, in turn, are expected to embellish one's exposure to unstable or sensitive conditions that increase individuals' chances of victimization. Routine Activities Approach The routine activities approach was developed by Cohen and Marcus in 1979. Kennedy and Silverman (1988:1) state that this technique was stimulated using Hawley's (1950) work on human ecology and paintings by Shaw and McKay on juvenile delinquency in urban areas (1942). The habitual hobby technique uses regularities in recurring behavior to expect criminal victimization. The routine hobby technique is a decidedly current technique linked to the rational choice angle. This means that this version is based on the freedom of desire and movement which produces a more complete picture or model of the crime (Williams & McShane, 1994:250). Routine activities can be described as “recurring and well-known” activities that satisfy primary desires of the population and character, whatever their biological or cultural origins (Cohen & Felson, 1979:593, Felson, 1997:913, Miethe , Stafford & long, 1987:184). These consist of formalized paintings and provision of widespread meals, shelter, sexual outlet, entertainment, social interaction, education and child-rearing. These sports can also arise at home, in jobs away from home, and in other sports focused away from home. Cohen and Felson's (1979:588-589) conceptualization of predatory crime focuses on 3 elements important to the commission of predatory crime. They.