ABSTRACT
Criminology, for most of its formative development, retained a narrow-minded attitude to the study of crime by concentrating on the offender and the causal factors associated with the offence. This chapter will examine how criminology and the emergent discipline of victimology have developed and sustained a series of false dichotomies: criminal versus non-criminal; criminal versus victim; victim versus nonvictim; visible victim versus invisible victim; blameless victim versus culpable victim; deserving victim versus undeserving victim; crime victim versus victimless crime. It will do so by exploring the relationship between criminology, victimology and criminal justice through discussion of (a) the ways in which victims have been variously constructed, and (b) the links between theoretical perspectives within criminology in general and theoretical perspectives that have informed debates about the study of victims. We will illustrate these debates by considering specific types of crime and victimisation, which, in turn, will lead us to raise questions about the role of politics and the state in deciding who is deserving of justice.
