Over the past several decades the tendency was to blame the victim when it came to the psychology and the dynamics of victimhood. Although, in past years blaming the victim was common, more recently this has changed. It is politically incorrect to exploit the role of victims in instances of crime cases.
No matter what the circumstance or the case the victim doe not deserved to be blamed for their own victimization. Many may feel that due to their particular lifestyle or where the victim may live precipitates causes for someone to be victimized. In many instances it has been thought that the victim’s behavior precipitates why they may be victimized. They are said to put these criminal acts in motion by exhibiting provocative or risky behavior. This may include picking arguments or even possibly using other gestures.
Even though victims should not be blamed for their own victimization, criminologists have come up with many theories as to why victims may play a role in their own victimization. The main theories of victimization include the victim precipitation theory which is broken into 2 parts. The parts of victimization include active and passive precipitation.
Active precipitation is considered to be when victims may dress or act in a provoking manner or use threatening or fighting words in the instance before they are victimized (Siegal, 2009). In passive precipitation, the victim is said to unknowingly instigate or provoke their attacker (Siegal, 2009. In either instance putting any type of blame on the victim is wrong in itself. Everyone, including the victim has the right to freedom of speech and either knowingly or unknowingly a person has a right to express themselves. The choice is always there for someone to commit a crime.
Still criminologists have other theories as to why victims are victimized. Many believe that the victim’s lifestyle may contribute to becoming a victim. This would be called the lifestyle theory....