Authored By: Aditya Mani Tripathi
Banaras Hindu University
ABSTRACT
Cesare Lombroso’s foundation of medical criminology revolved around the concept of offender, leaving victim completely in disguise. This article examines how the blind spot left by the Lombroso’s criminology was filled by the Post-Lombrosian thoughts and theories. Post-Lombrosian scholars such as Mendelsohn, Hans Von Hentig, Robert K. Merton sought to introduce the criminological shift from offender-centric criminology to victim-inclusive Victimology.
This article examines the era of offender-centric victim criminology, fall of Lombrosian Positivism and the rise of the contemporary Victimology. It documents how victims precipitates the crime and how Victim Assessment Theory helps supplement judges in making decisions. It examines how Restorative Justice is also facing severe challenges to cope up with the modern challenges. Ultimately this article examines how the shift from the medicalisation of crime which Lombroso sought has culminated into the dawn of an entirely new discipline.
INTRODUCTION
Crime, Criminal & Criminality are the major concerns of our society since time immemorial. Whether it was ancient primitives or today’s Artificially-Intelligent Robots, Crime has always been a parameter stooling over decades. Crime has always been viewed through different lenses. Therefore, to present a comprehensive study of crime, criminal & criminality, a new discipline of study emerged popularly known as Criminology. As Thorsten Sellin said, “Criminology is a Bastard Science.” It is a dependent science. If we seek to understand the concept of criminology, many criminologists have presented their different versions of Criminality. When we endeavour to look at it through the lens of Cesare Lombroso, crime is a subject of biological determinism. Lombroso believed that Criminals are innately criminal.
He rejected the view that Men are guided by societal surroundings. Being a criminologist of the nineteenth-century, Lombroso developed scientific study of crime in his laboratory, experimenting with the physical stigmata of the criminals. He believed that physical traits or attributes such as facial asymmetry or the shape of the skull determines your criminal propensity. This concept is known as Atavism (a word derived from the Greek word ‘atavus’ meaning ‘a remote ancestor’) suggesting the animal-centric behaviour of our primitives. But the primal question which was missing in this theory or the earlier theories was “ What about the Victims?”
As according to the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, “victims” means persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental right, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative within member states, including those laws proscribing criminal abuse of power.”
Cesare Lombroso’s Biological Positivism completely disregarded the concept of Victim. He was more concerned with physical traits of criminals who wear tattoos, have big jawlines and facial symmetries rather than psychological factors. He was surrounded by craniometers, callipers, algometers and meticulous chart of human anatomy measuring the skulls of inmates, and their jawlines. However, this dawn of biological determinism succumbed over time and the dawn of Post-Lombrosian era began which gave the necessary operation to the concept of “victim.”
I) THE ERA OF OFFENDER-CENTRIC VICTIMOLOGY
This article seeks to understand the evolution of victim walking down through the era of Lombroso and his successors. This article however focuses on Victims which Lombroso forgot. It is therefore imperative to understand what he built. The 18th century criminology, popularly known as Classical School of Criminology was led by Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria. They believed in the proposition that man is a calculating animal. It simply posits that every man has a free will and crime happens not because the offender is innately evil but because men are a product of their mind and its consciousness. The failure of classical school to rationalize crime to a greater extent and its criminal-centric philosophy spurred the rise of a new class of criminology which was particularly offender-centric.
Cesare Lombroso, a doctor from Italy was the major proponent of this school. This School was popularly regarded as Positivist/Italian School. He believed that criminals are innately criminal and they can be identified through scientific studies.
He believed that there are certain animal-like characteristics of primitives which are common to criminals, delinquents & habitual offenders. He came to this conclusion when he did a post-mortem examination of a dead Italian bandit named Giuseppe Vilella in 1871. While examining his skull, he discovered a depression at the base of the skull called Median Occipital Fossa. He therefore developed the Theory of Atavism.
Lombroso’s idea of delinquente nato (born criminal) suggested quantitative analysis to understand the physical traits of criminals. He even shared some of the physical attributes criminals usually possessed which he called stigmata. They are:
a) Asymmetrical forces (uneven eyes/ears, planted nose).
b) Large jawlines
c) Irregularity in teeth.
d) Unusual Skull, etc.
He also believed that criminals have more fascination towards wearing tattoos and are generally more restless and less patient. When his theory was criticised, he revised his theory and also acknowledged that psychological / behavioural defects could also lead to stigmatisation of crime. For example, he concluded that people suffering from epilepsy shows more impulsivity towards crime and gave an example of a soldier who was suffering from epilepsy. He killed many of his fellow soldiers because of his mental imbalance.
II) THE FALL OF LOMBROSIAN POSITIVISM
Albeit Lombroso was heavily criticised, he never negated the idea that Criminals are innately criminal. But his overly focus on physical stigmata was heavily criticised by Post Lombrosian Scholars. His theory of atavism which believed that criminals were incorrigible was completely negated by later criminologists.
Enrico Ferri completely negated Lombrosian views & propounded that men is a product of his society and the socio-cultural-economic affairs also alters the psychological behaviour of humans which is a quintessential pre-requisite for the commission of crime.
The growth of Chicago School of Criminology also hindered the growth of Lombrosian Positivism which focussed on biological traits. Criminologist like Edwin Sutherland, Gabriel de Tarde, Goring, Lindelsmith and Roberton Merton started viewing crime as a result of social factors, not merely offender-centric. But merely this shift alone did not produced Victimology butit did least break down the stereotypical notion of incorrigibility of criminals and was a greater shift towards recognising society-based criminology.
III) A PHASE OF TRANSITION: POST-LOMBROSIAN CRIMINOLOGY
In the 1920s and 1930s, scholars of the University of Chicago took upon themselves the responsibility of understanding the crime, criminal & criminality. In pursuant to this endeavour, many thoughts developed. The louder and important thoughts were of Edwin Sutherland & Robert K. Merton. Chicago School of Criminology believed that a person is a product of his surroundings, his environment and the relationship between humans.
Dr. Edwin Sutherland developed the concept of Differential Association Theory of Criminality & coined the term “White-Collar Crime” in 1939. Dr. Edwin Sutherland believed that Criminality was a learned behaviour. There are different groups in society. The people who have deviated from the main group negating the age-old established norms became more susceptible to the criminality-induced behaviour. Sutherland also negated the class-distinction of criminality. The mere assumption that normally the people from the lower rungs of society engages themselves in the criminal behaviour because of their socio-economic circumstances was disregarded completely by Sutherland by introducing the concept of White-Collar Crime where big business organisations engage themselves in the criminal activities to attract profits.
Robert K. Merton developed the Deviant Theory. He modified Emile Durkheim’s idea of Anomie and transformed it into structural explanation of social strain. According to Merton, when people are subjected to strain, particularly social one, they exhibit deviant behaviour, known as anomie. This behaviour is a result of mismatch between culturally prescriptive means and socially prescriptive goals. This was a major shift from offender-based Criminology towards recognising societal-based criminology but then again it did not lead to Victimology directly. However, it acted as a conducive shift towards recognising a new sub field of Criminology.
IV) RECOGNITION OF VICTIM WHICH LOMBROSO FORGOT
From Classical Positivist’s firm belief that “Men is a calculating animal” to Post-Lombrosian Deviant Theory, Criminology underwent rationalization. Crime became medicalized and scientific. The journey of criminology from being offender-centric to social-deviant introduced propensity towards studying a new branch of Criminology known as Victimology.
It was very imperative to identify victim and how they may contribute to the discipline of criminology. Just take an example, two brothers of a family get into a family dispute or a distant relative rapes a minor innocent girl, or a lover who throws an acid on a girl, all these instances, particularly the majority of crimes happens between peoples who are relatively familiar. This concept reiterated the need of victimology, where it is generally believed that victim, themselves might have contributed to their own victimisation. Now all of a sudden the conceptualisation of victimology began. The focus shifted on the hardships faced by the victims. Chapter 6 of the Justice Malimath Committee Report emphasized the hardships of victims throughout the criminal justice delivery system and also advocated for establishment of a ” Victim Support Service Coordinator.” Even this concept is reiterated in the case of Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab1, that our criminal justice system is flawed with the negation of victim.
Victimology simply defines the relationship between the victim and the accused. It seeks to understand the relationship and how such relationship between them have contributed to crime. It also seeks to understand the steps to protect the victims of crimes from victimisation. This is how the victim came into picture. Various criminologists have developed the inclusion of victim into criminology. Few notable Victimologists are:-
1] Hans Von Hentig:
Hans Von Hentig sought to understand about the pre-requisite factors which may lead to criminality. He wrote a book” The Criminal & His Victim: Studies in the Sociology of Crime”, (1948). He believed that there are certain characteristics. that are inherently victim prone. There is certain section of people who are naturally prone to become victims of crime. They may be old, fragile and susceptible to crime. He believed that crime victims should be placed in one of these thirteen categories:
(1)Young
(2)Females
(3) Old
(4) Immigrants
(5) Depressed
(6) Mentally deranged
(7) The Acquisitive
(8) Dull Normal
(9) Minorities
(10) Wanton
(11) The Lonesome & Heartbroken
(12) Tormentor
(13) The Blocked, Exempted and Fighting
For instance, mentally deranged person might be more prone to victimisation because of his defected cognitive mind or an old person might not be cognisant enough and are more easily susceptible to crime. Therefore it is not only criminal which leads to criminality but also victim which contributes to Victimisation.
2) Benjamin Mendelsohn:
Benjamin Mendelsohn was a popular criminologist known as father of “Victimology.” He did many researchs, interviews and strongly reiterated that the victim and criminal has some kind of existing relationship. He even advocated for the introduction of a new social science to be called “Victimity” in the year 1950s. He even identified two principal areas of research: 1) victimisation prevention and 2) victim assistance. He even classified the victims based on their culpability. They are:
1) completely innocent victim: A child
2) victim with minor guilt: A person who leaver his key in a car
3) victim as guilty as offender : Suicide.
4) victim more guilty than offender: A drunk men arguing in bar
5) Most guilty victim: A Robber
6) Imaginary victim: A person who files a wrong case
3) XYY Chromosome Theory ( Saleem A. Shah):
This theory by Saleem A. Shah takes us back to the position analogous to that of Biological Determinism. It posits that people who possess an extra ‘Y’ Chromosomes are usually more violent and aggressive than a normal male of ‘XY’ Chromosome. They possess less cognitive capacity and are highly susceptible and prone to the criminal behaviour.
Fraser, F Clarke & Nora James J (1975, 1981), Thompson J.(1975, 1981), Thompson M.20 (1970), suggested the positive role of an extra Y chromosome in violent behaviour. They estimated that people with XYY chromosomes (possessing taller physical traits) and less cognitive capacity) are more likely to be imprisoned than a normal XY males. In a study, out of 140 individuals who were convicted under IPC 302, only 84 were analysed because of cultural failure among the rest. When a cytogenetic study was done it way analysed that there is a definite relationship between criminal behaviour & XYY chromosomes.
In here, people with XYY chromosomes are victims because of institutional and social bias.. They are victims of prejudice and over-policed laws. The study of the relationship regarding Shah’s Chromosomal Theory is still under discussion.
V) VICTIM PRECIPITATION THEORY
The traits of a victim precipitates the crime. A Criminal could be singled out because of his ethnicity, race, orientation, gender or sexual orientation. Precipitation means quick and hurried action – unusual, unwise or rash hosts. It reduces the culpability of offender. It is based on the fact that there is a relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. This relationship can actively or passively contribute to a criminal incident. This term was first used by Wolfgang to describe situations in which the victim was the initial aggressor in the action that led to their harm or loss. This theory tried to break the notion that it is the offender only who is always in the shadows of doubt. Many a times, victims too contribute to the crime and criminality. Precipitation is still relevant to understand the victim-offender dyad and a crime needs to be studied from multiple perspectives. It is not victim blaming but it is an effort to understand crime through empirical lens.
VI) POST-LOMBROSIAN LEGAL REFORMS AND VICTIM’S RIGHTS
Post-Lombrosian criminology shifted its focus from the Biological Determinism of Lombroso to Victim-Centric jurisprudence. Victim-offender dyad was taken into consideration so as to reform the age-old traditional method of viewing crime as only offender-based discipline. Chicago School of Criminology contributed greatly in the transitioning phase even though they directly were not the proponents of victim-based criminology. This philosophical shift introduced by criminologist such as Hans Von Hentig and Benjamin Mendelsohn advocated for the victim’s right by recognising it.
A) Victim Impact Assessment Theory
As our criminology progressed towards the dawn of Victimology, we do see the necessity of providing victims with the necessary constructs and rights. Victim-offender dyad helped us understand the roles of victims in victimology but we cannot single out any institution to be completely right or wrong. Crime is a very grave concern and victims are stereotypically pitied because of historically relevant facts. However, the Biological Positivism of Lombroso never bothered to mention about victims. But Victimologists such as Hans Von Hentig and Mendelsohn’s continued effort provided it with the necessary nexus to survive. In pursuance of this, ‘victims’ rights were advocated.
Victim Assessment Theory are usually done to assess the impact of crime on victim. It records the plight, sorrow or feelings the victim or its near relative feels. It even assists the judges to decide the quantum of sentence. Take for instance, the due process of law in Indian Constitution which attaches the responsibility to the Criminal Justice System to treat the victims with increased awareness & sensitivity.
B) Restorative Justice
Citing Greif, Liebmann has written that,
1) a way of working at restorative justice is to think of it of a balance between a number of different tensions;
2) a balance between the therapeutic and the retributive models of justice; 3) a balance between the rights of offenders and the needs of victims;
4) a balance between the need to rehabilitate offenders and the duty to protect the public.
Restorative Justice is a dialogue and interaction between the victim and offender, the perpetrator and sufferer. It seeks to balance the needs of the victim, wrongdoer and community through processes that preserve the safety and dignity of all.
Scholars such as Nils Christie and Howard Zehr did contribute to its development. Nils Christie’s “Conflicts of Property” is a foundational document for the restorative justice and “community empowerment” movements. Christie explains that if there are two persons in a criminal activity, i.e. the offender and the victim, then initially it is a civil kind of problem between these two, but it presupposes the involvement of State when the crime finally takes place. The victim, therefore loses to both the Criminal and the State.
Restorative justice presupposes mediation between offender and the victim. It prompts active dialogue, where the offender accepts his mistakes and the victims forgive the offenders. This is a very big shift from Lombrosian Strict Determinism of criminals and criminality.
C) Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime & Abuse of power.
In 1985, United Nations General Assembly adopted a Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. It provided with the formal recognition that victims possess independent claims against the State and the Justice System. It annexes access to justice & fair treatment, restitution, compensation and assistance. Although it is a declaration but it is a reference point for Member States regarding conduct.
VII) CONTEMPORARY VICTIMOLOGY
A) Victimology Today:
Victimology today has developed significantly. There was a time when ‘victim’ was never viewed as someone who might be a promoter of crime. Victims were only seen as stereotypically depressed ones. But the rational approach gave it a different tint. Victimology today focusses on both the criminal and the victim. Even early victimologists like Hentig, Mendelsohn and their theories of typological determinism also emerged in this discipline.
B) Positivist victimology:
This school believes that crime, along with all the other natural and social phenomena, is caused by factors and processes which can be discovered by scientific processes. They (Early positivist victimologists) believed that certain victims might in some way contribute to their own victimization.
C) Radical victimology:
Early radical criminologist such as Quinney (1972) drew attention to the impact of state, socio-structural construct of society and the legal system. It is not the individual or self evident traits of victims that contributes to victimisation but there are many more factors which contributes into development of victimology.
D) Critical victimology:
It seeks to ascertain how some social groups are present in the society who are structurally more susceptible to the risk of crime. For instance, homeless person on streets, minorities living in camps, old parents surviving without their child and many more.
E) Feminist victimology:
It is discipline of victimology that examines criminality through the lens of gendered power relations, unequal social power between different genders & social activism.
VIII) CHALLENGES IN THE CONTEMPORARY VICTIMOLOGY 1) Victim-Blaming
One of the biggest challenge in the contemporary victimology is Victim-Blaming. Early positivist victimologists believed that the traits of a victim precipitate the crime. This is however unfair to the assume because by holding the sufferer accountable for his suffering, we are doing grave injustice to the sufferer. This Victim-Blaming needs to be thoroughly examined as it remains one of the most discretionary topic in today’s victimology.
2) Secondary Victimisation:
Imagine yourselves as a victim who has been wronged. You knock the doors of the justice system and the justice system mocks you in return. Under the garb of giving you justice, intrusive cross-examinations, long court hours, frequent court calls, prolonged trials are going to even prolong your suffering. A victim is firstly victimised by the offender, and secondly by the courts. This concept is known as Secondary Victimisation.
3) Restorative Justice:
Restorative Justice might be a very noble topic when it is seen from the point of view of the offender. But what about the agony faced by victims? The socio-economic pressure build on the grave of his status and stature cannot be compensated. By asking the victim for the Tertiary victimisation?
How can we even expect the victim to forgive the one took his status? Therefore, a great reform needs to be done in the justice system incorporating both the needs of Restorative Justice along with compensating the status of Victim.
IX) THE SHIFT FROM LOMBROSIAN POSITIVISM TO POST-LOMBROSIAN CRIMINALITY
The shift from Lombrosian Biological Determinism to contemporary Victimology was not very fluid. The positivism of physical stigmata as propounded by Lombroso & his theory of delinquente nato was the first scientific theory at that time which sought to rationalize the fragmented thoughts with respect to crime and criminality. However, his conceptualization of crime did not include one of the most important person in the criminality, i.e. ‘victim’. Victims were conventionally viewed as someone who were always wronged. The conceptualization of probability of a victim who might lead to his own victimisation was never explored until the early Victimologist such as Mendelsohn and Von Hentig did so.
However, the typological drift explored by the early Victimologists produced the categories of “depressed” or “wanton” which echoes nothing but Lombroso’s own biological stubbornness. It is ironical that how a discipline founded to correct criminology’s neglect of victim was risking by producing criminology’s original methodological sin, although this time however to equally different vulnerable population.
X) CONCLUSION
Cesare Lombroso’s biological positivism was a ground-breaking theory as it sought to present a rational and an empirical method of understanding crime, criminal and criminality. A victim, who is inadvertently a part of a criminal act was completely out of the picture. He was viewed nothing more than a sufferer. But the Post-Lombrosian thought led by the Chicago School of Criminality and the works of the scholars such as Edwin Sutherland and Robert K. Merton focused on areas beyond the physical stigmata as propounded by Biological Positivists. They incorporated the socio-economic accountability of social & psychological factors in criminality.
This was a major shift towards recognising something far more than biological stigmata.
The fall of Biological Determinism, the growth of sociological and interactional accounts of crime and the risk of typological determinism led by Hans Von Hentig and Mendelsohn made this shift from the “victim-neglect” criminology to “victim-inclusive” victimology possible. The shift from the medicalisation of crime to the holistic, situational context of victim was reformative and ground-breaking. The victim which Lombroso forgot has not only been remembered but has been given a substantial place in the contemporary criminal justice delivery system.
REFERENCE(S):
1) BOOKS
i) Mrs. Glory Nirmala K (Prepared under the sponsorship of the Justice & Legal System Research Institute).
ii) Edwin 1. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey, Principles of Criminology (6th ed, 1960)
iii) Freda et al, Criminology, 2nd ed, 1995)
iv) Paranjape, N.V- “Criminolgy and Penology”, 13th ed. Central Law Publications, Allahabad, India, 2007
2) ARTICLE
i) GOSAVI SR, GAJBE UL, MESHRAM SW, CHIMURKAR VK. CYTOGENETIC STUDY IN CRIMINALS (MURDERERS): ROLE OF XYY CHROMOSOME IN CRIMINALITY. Journal of Clinical & Diagnostic Research [serial olive] 2009 December [Cited: 2009 December 7]; 3: 1911-1919
ii) Mysoon saifudeen ‘Decoding criminality: A scholarly Review of Cesare Lombroso’s Positivist Criminology,’ Volume V (Issue V) | ISSN: 2583-0538
3) WEBSITES
i) Criminal Division | Victim Impact Statements
https://share.google/Bz95jYbqfDQnwRSUL
Us department of justice
ii) https://medcraveonline.com/FRCIJ/victim-precipitation-why-we-need-to expand-upon-the-theory.html
iii) https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/DECODING
CRIMINALITY-A-SCHOLARLY-REVIEW-OF-CESARE-LOMBROSOS POSITIVIST-CRIMINOLOGY.pdf
iv) Merton, Robert SSRC Remembering.pdf
https://share.google/98Sm4QmBOmECSJNQ3
Craig Colhoun
v) https://share.google/GwVrc2X6FasteHAVW
4) CASE
i) Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 1 S.C.R. 846 (India).
Reference(S):
1(1980) 1 S.C.R. 846 (India).
