Bibliographic record
Abstract
As popular as victimology has become, it is surprising that no comprehensive history of the discipline has ever been written and there are no systematic assessments of its present state or of likely future developments. The present paper is an attempt to remedy this situation. Victimology is a young, promising discipline and a fascinating subject. And although victimization is as old as humanity itself, it was not until after the Second World War that the scientific study of crime victims emerged as an essential complement to criminology's well-established research on offenders. Because it emerged to fill a serious theoretical void, it did not take long for victimology to become an integral part of criminology. And although victimology has by now affirmed itself as a major research area within criminology, its nature, importance and standing continue to generate a great deal of comments and controversy. Be this as it may, the study of crime victims and of criminal victimization has the potential of reshaping the entire discipline of criminology and may very well be the long awaited paradigm shift that criminology desperately needs. Like criminology, victimology has not followed the same path in every part of the globe. And as with any other discipline, it is more advanced and more developed in certain countries than it is in others. And while there are certain similarities and commonalities in the way victimology developed here and there, there are also significant qualitative and even quantitative differences. Despite this, recent developments in victimology have been both emphatic and dramatic, and the discipline has undergone a radical transformation. The theoretical approaches that characterized early victimology were eclipsed by major achievements in the applied field. This remarkable phase in the evolution of victimology was one of consolidation, data gathering, theory formulation, and above all new victim legislation and sustained efforts to improve the victim's lot and alleviate their plight. In the theoretical field various models were developed in an attempt to explain the enormous variations in victimization risks, the clustering of victimization in certain areas and certain groups, and to unravel the intriguing phenomenon of repeat victimization. On the legislative front there was a flurry of victim bills in a large number of countries. Following the adoption of the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power by the General Assembly of the United Nations, Victims Bills of Rights were passed by the legislative bodies in several countries. The developments in the applied field were even more spectacular. Among those developments was the creation of state compensation to victims of violent crime, the re-emergence of restitution by offender, and the establishment and proliferation of victim-offender mediation programs. One sector that saw great expansion was that of victim services. Victim therapy became a popular and acceptable way of dealing with the traumatic effects of victimization. Based on this dynamic history and on past and present trends, the paper makes an attempt to identify some likely future developments in victimology. It suggests that a transition from utopian idealism to hard realism will occur, accompanied by growing emphasis on scientific research, particularly qualitative research. It foresees that the need for advocacy and partisanship will decline, and predicts the demise of victim therapy. Future developments in victimology are seen as intimately linked to the acceptance and implementation of the restorative justice paradigm. The conclusion is that victimology will likely develop into a truly scientific discipline and a truly humanistic practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".