Victims of crime | AQA A-Level Sociology
Updated: 6 days ago
For Specification 7192
AQA A-Level Sociology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 65 to 75 minutes
The sociology of victims asks who is most likely to experience crime, why victimisation is socially unequal and how sociologists should explain these differences. This Victims of crime A-Level Sociology revision page examines patterns of victimisation, with particular attention to social class, deprivation and resources, and compares positivist and radical approaches to victimology. It also considers the strengths and limitations of different evidence about victims. AQA explicitly requires students to study victims as part of Crime and Deviance, and directly assessed class differences in victimisation in 2022.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain what sociologists mean by victimisation and victimology.
Describe source-supported patterns in experiences of victimisation.
Explain why deprivation and access to resources may affect the risk of becoming a victim.
Distinguish positivist and radical approaches to victimology.
Analyse the concept of victim precipitation.
Evaluate sociological explanations and evidence concerning patterns of victimisation.
Revision Notes 📚
Victims of crime A-Level Sociology revision
AQA requires students to study victims as part of Crime and Deviance. The course plan develops this through the sociological study of victims, patterns in experiences of victimisation and explanations of those patterns.
This topic changes the focus of criminology.
Much of Crime and Deviance asks:
Who commits crime and why?
Victimology instead asks questions such as:
Who becomes a victim?
Is the risk of victimisation distributed equally?
Why are some groups more vulnerable than others?
How far should explanations focus on victims' behaviour rather than wider social inequalities?
These questions connect closely with the course-wide AQA theme of social differentiation, power and stratification.
What is victimisation?
Victimisation refers to the experience of becoming a victim of crime.
Studying victimisation is not the same as studying offending.
A person or group may:
experience a high risk of offending;
experience a high risk of victimisation;
experience both;
experience neither.
The two patterns therefore need to be kept conceptually separate.
This distinction was particularly important in the 2022 examination, where AQA asked specifically about social class differences in becoming a victim of crime rather than social class differences in offending.
What is victimology?
Victimology is the sociological study of victims and victimisation.
It asks why particular people or groups may have different risks of becoming victims and how those risks should be explained.
AQA's 2022 mark scheme explicitly identifies two contrasting approaches:
positivist victimology;
radical victimology.
These approaches focus on different causes.
A simplified distinction is:
Positivist victimology: asks whether characteristics or behaviour associated with victims may contribute to their risk.
Radical victimology: focuses more strongly on wider inequalities, deprivation and lack of resources that expose some groups to greater risks.
This contrast is central to the lesson.
The social distribution of victimisation
Victimisation is not equally distributed
AQA's 2022 Paper 3 was based on the premise that there are social class differences in becoming a victim of crime.
The item identified two relevant social patterns:
differences between classes in deprivation and access to resources;
higher recorded levels of violence among people from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
This shows that sociologists should not treat victimisation as a random experience equally distributed across society.
Instead, risk can be connected with social position.
Social class and victimisation
Social class is the most directly assessed victimisation pattern in the supplied recent AQA materials.
The 2022 mark scheme states that working-class people may be at greater risk because of:
deprivation;
lack of resources to protect themselves;
living in deprived areas with higher levels of crime.
This produces a structural explanation:
deprivation → reduced access to protective resources → greater exposure or vulnerability → increased risk of victimisation
AQA gives vandalism and theft as examples within this explanation.
Deprivation
Deprivation involves disadvantage and restricted access to social or economic resources.
AQA's 2022 item explicitly links differences in deprivation to social class differences in victimisation.
Deprivation may matter because those with fewer resources may have less ability to protect:
themselves;
their homes;
their property.
The sociological argument is therefore not simply:
"Poor people experience more crime."
A developed explanation is:
Deprivation can affect the resources available for protection, creating unequal vulnerability to some forms of victimisation.
Access to resources
Access to resources is a separate but closely connected part of the AQA item.
People with greater resources may have more opportunities to protect themselves or property from some forms of crime.
By contrast:
fewer resources → fewer protective options → increased exposure to some risks
This allows a radical victimology answer to connect social inequality directly to victimisation.
The key examination word is because.
Do not merely state that the working class is more likely to be victimised. Explain the mechanism producing the difference.
Area deprivation
AQA's 2022 mark scheme also accepts the argument that working-class people may be more likely to become victims because they live in areas of deprivation with higher levels of crime.
This shifts attention from an individual's personal characteristics to the social environment.
The chain is:
social-class inequality → greater likelihood of living in deprived area → greater exposure to crime → increased victimisation risk
This is a structural explanation.
It does not require the victim to have done anything to create the risk.
Crime and victimisation can be concentrated in the same communities
AQA's 2022 item also states that there are higher recorded levels of violence committed by people from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
This creates another possible explanation for class differences in victimisation.
If offending and victimisation are concentrated in similar social settings, those who are exposed to environments with higher recorded levels of violence may also face greater risks of becoming victims.
The important point is:
patterns of offending and victimisation can overlap socially
but they must not be confused.
Ethnicity and victimisation
AQA also recognises differences in victimisation by ethnicity.
The 2024 mark scheme accepts the argument that some ethnic groups face a higher risk of victimisation, giving targeting through hate crime as an example.
This means ethnicity can affect victimisation where individuals are targeted because of their ethnic identity.
The basic process is:
ethnic identity → targeting through hate crime → increased victimisation risk for some groups
Avoid treating ethnicity as one homogeneous category.
Victimisation and social inequality
The class and ethnicity material together demonstrate a broader sociological point:
Victimisation may reflect existing structures of social inequality.
Individuals do not all have the same:
resources;
residential circumstances;
exposure to particular forms of crime;
likelihood of being targeted through hate crime.
This is why victimisation connects directly with the AQA core theme of social differentiation, power and stratification.
Gender, fear and victimisation
Gender requires particularly careful handling.
AQA's media mark schemes recognise that media representations may exaggerate the risk of becoming a victim, particularly for women.
This tells us something important about the sociology of victims:
perceived risk of victimisation is not automatically the same as measured victimisation risk.
Do not therefore write:
"Women are more likely to be victims because women fear crime more."
Fear and victimisation are different concepts.
A stronger sociological analysis distinguishes:
actual experiences of victimisation;
perceived risk;
fear of crime;
media representations of victims.
These ideas link with the media and crime [The media and crime].
Evidence about victimisation
Victim surveys
Sociologists can use victim surveys when examining experiences of crime.
AQA mark schemes explicitly recognise victim surveys as evidence about crime and use them when comparing media representations with broader patterns of offending and victimisation.
A victim survey asks people about their experiences of becoming victims.
This is useful because it does not depend entirely on a crime ending in:
detection;
arrest;
prosecution;
conviction.
Victim surveys may therefore reveal experiences that are not captured by conviction statistics.
Victim surveys and the dark figure
The dark figure of crime refers to crime that is absent from official crime statistics.
Victim surveys are sociologically significant because they may provide information about incidents that do not appear in some official records.
However, a victim survey should not automatically be treated as a perfect measure of every form of victimisation.
Different evidence sources measure different stages or experiences of crime.
This means the most accurate examination language is:
Victim surveys provide an additional source of evidence about victimisation rather than a complete measure of every crime.
Official statistics and victimisation
Official statistics may also provide evidence about victims, but their meaning depends on what has been recorded.
A statistic produced through police or criminal justice processes may reflect:
whether an incident was reported;
whether it was recorded;
how it was classified.
This means sociologists should ask:
What exactly does this statistic measure?
A recorded offence is not automatically the same thing as every experience of victimisation.
This develops the methodological issues examined in crime patterns and trends [Recent patterns and trends in crime].
Positivist victimology
The basic approach
AQA's 2022 mark scheme explicitly accepts positivist victimology as one explanation of social class differences in becoming a victim.
In the AQA example, those from lower socio-economic backgrounds may partly create their own risk of becoming victims because of higher recorded levels of violent behaviour.
The key idea is victim precipitation.
Victim precipitation
Victim precipitation refers to the argument that a victim's own behaviour may contribute in some way to the circumstances in which victimisation occurs.
AQA's 2022 mark scheme explicitly uses the idea that lower socio-economic groups may precipitate, or cause, their own risk as part of the analysis and evaluation of positivist victimology.
The proposed process is:
behaviour associated with greater exposure to violence → increased likelihood of entering situations involving violence → increased victimisation risk
This is very different from radical victimology.
Positivist victimology and social class
Applied to the 2022 AQA item:
people from lower socio-economic backgrounds have higher recorded levels of violent behaviour;
this may increase their exposure to violent interactions;
this may increase their likelihood of becoming victims themselves.
AQA explicitly identifies this as a positivist victimology route.
The approach therefore directs attention towards patterns of behaviour and risk.
Evaluating positivist victimology
The 2022 mark scheme itself encourages evaluation of the extent to which the working class precipitate their own risk of being victims.
This shows that victim precipitation should not simply be accepted as a fact.
A useful sociological evaluation is to compare it with structural explanations.
A focus on behaviour can explain how individuals may become exposed to risky situations.
However, radical victimology asks why those risks and resources are distributed unequally in the first place.
The debate is therefore:
individual behaviour and exposure
versus
structural inequality and vulnerability
Avoiding simplistic victim-blaming
It is especially important to use careful sociological language when discussing victim precipitation.
Victim precipitation is an explanation to be evaluated, not a licence to assume victims are responsible for crimes committed against them.
A strong answer might say:
Positivist victimology may explain how particular behavioural patterns increase exposure to risk, but this does not establish that victims are solely responsible for their victimisation.
The existence of another person's offending remains central.
Structural inequalities may also shape the situations in which risks arise.
Radical victimology
The basic approach
AQA's 2022 mark scheme explicitly labels deprivation and lack of resources as a radical victimology explanation of working-class victimisation.
Radical victimology shifts attention towards:
social class;
deprivation;
inequality;
access to resources.
The explanation is therefore structural.
Instead of asking primarily:
"What did the victim do?"
it asks:
"What social conditions make some groups more vulnerable to becoming victims?"
Radical victimology and deprivation
The AQA example is clear:
working-class deprivation → fewer resources for protection → greater risk from crimes such as vandalism or theft.
This makes victimisation part of wider social inequality.
The same groups may experience both:
economic disadvantage;
greater exposure to some forms of crime.
Crime therefore creates another dimension of unequal life chances.
Radical victimology and resources
Radical victimology draws attention to unequal capacities for self-protection.
If resources are socially unequal, the ability to avoid or reduce exposure to crime may also be unequal.
The sociological process is:
unequal social resources → unequal protective resources → unequal vulnerability
This is a strong structural explanation because it connects victimisation with the organisation of society rather than treating victimhood as random.
Evaluating radical victimology
Radical victimology has the advantage of drawing attention to:
class inequality;
deprivation;
social environment;
unequal access to protection.
It also directly addresses AQA's core theme of social differentiation, power and stratification.
However, structural disadvantage may not explain every individual experience of victimisation.
Positivist approaches can therefore challenge radical victimology by asking whether:
behaviour;
routine exposure;
patterns of violence
also contribute to risk.
A strong evaluation recognises that structural position and individual behaviour may interact.
Positivist and radical victimology compared
Positivist victimology | Radical victimology |
Focuses more strongly on characteristics, behaviour and exposure to risk | Focuses more strongly on structural inequality |
Includes victim precipitation | Includes deprivation and unequal resources |
Asks whether behaviour contributes to risk | Asks why vulnerability is socially unequal |
Can explain variation through risky situations | Can explain class patterns through structural disadvantage |
May understate wider social inequalities if used alone | May understate individual differences in exposure if used alone |
AQA's 2022 question provides a particularly useful opportunity to compare these two perspectives.
Victimisation and Left Realism
AQA's 2022 mark scheme identifies Lea and Young among sociologists relevant to victimisation.
The supplied material does not provide a detailed standalone account of Lea and Young's victimology.
However, Left Realist material elsewhere in AQA Crime and Deviance places strong emphasis on:
deprivation;
marginalisation;
the real effects of crime on communities.
This is compatible with taking victimisation seriously as a genuine social harm.
Named victimologists
AQA's 2022 mark scheme identifies a wide range of sociologists who may be relevant to victimisation, including:
Christie;
Cohen and Felson;
Hoyle;
Lea and Young;
Lees;
Mawby and Walklate;
Mendelsohn;
Miers;
Newburn and Rock;
Tombs and Whyte;
Von Hentig;
Walklate;
Wilson and Kelling;
Wolfgang.
These names show that there is a broad sociological literature on victims.
However, the supplied mark scheme lists them without setting out their detailed arguments.
For revision based strictly on the supplied materials, prioritise the secure concepts:
positivist victimology;
radical victimology;
victim precipitation;
deprivation;
access to resources;
social class differences in victimisation.
Individual and structural explanations
The two victimology approaches demonstrate a wider sociological debate between social action and social structure.
More individualised explanation
Looks at behaviour and exposure to risk.
Example:
violent behaviour → increased exposure to violent situations → victimisation
Structural explanation
Looks at wider inequalities that shape people's circumstances.
Example:
deprivation → fewer protective resources → increased vulnerability
AQA's course plan identifies the relationship between social structure and social action as a course-wide thread.
Victimology provides a good opportunity to apply this debate.
Victims and offenders are not completely separate social categories
The 2022 AQA item highlights an important complication.
Lower socio-economic groups may show higher recorded levels of some forms of violence while also experiencing greater victimisation risks.
This means sociology should not automatically imagine:
one group of offenders
and
a completely separate group of victims.
The same communities or social groups may experience both high offending and high victimisation.
However, in an exam answer, never drift from explaining victimisation into simply explaining offending.
The 2022 examiner report identifies exactly this problem.
Victimisation and ethnicity
AQA's 2024 material recognises hate crime as one reason some ethnic groups may face a higher risk of victimisation.
This demonstrates that victim risk may result from being targeted because of a social identity.
This differs from both of the class explanations in the 2022 item.
It therefore shows why no single theory of victimisation is likely to explain every pattern.
Victimisation can be connected with:
economic inequality;
social environment;
patterns of offending;
targeting of identities.
The wider relationship between ethnicity and crime is developed in [Ethnicity and crime].
Victimisation and media representation
Media representation affects how society understands victims.
AQA's specimen and 2020 materials recognise that media coverage may exaggerate the perceived risk of becoming a victim, particularly among women.
This creates three separate sociological questions:
Who actually becomes a victim?
Who fears becoming a victim?
Which victims receive media attention?
These should not automatically be treated as the same pattern.
This distinction is examined further in [The media and crime].
Actual risk and perceived risk
Actual victimisation risk concerns the likelihood of experiencing crime.
Perceived risk concerns how likely people believe victimisation to be.
The media material supplied by AQA shows that the second can be influenced by representations of crime.
Therefore:
high fear ≠ automatically high measured victimisation
and:
low fear ≠ automatically low measured victimisation
This is an important example of why evidence must be interpreted carefully.
Victimisation and crime prevention
Patterns of victimisation also matter for crime prevention [Crime prevention].
If some social groups have fewer resources to protect themselves, a prevention strategy based heavily on individual target hardening may have unequal consequences.
A radical victimology interpretation would draw attention to whether everyone has equal access to the resources needed to reduce their exposure.
This provides a useful synoptic link:
victimisation risk → access to protection → crime prevention → inequality
Do not expand this into a full prevention essay unless the question asks for it.
Victimisation and the criminal justice system
Victims may also come into contact with agencies responsible for:
recording crime;
investigating offences;
responding to offenders.
This means the study of victims connects naturally to the next lesson, criminal justice responses [The criminal justice system and other agencies].
However, this lesson is primarily about:
who experiences victimisation;
why risks differ;
how victimisation is explained.
Keep that focus in examination answers.
Evaluating evidence about victimisation
A strong sociological answer evaluates the evidence as well as the explanation.
1. What does the evidence measure?
Does it measure:
victim reports;
recorded offences;
convictions;
fear of crime?
These are not identical.
2. Are all experiences recorded?
Some experiences may never enter official crime statistics.
3. Does the evidence distinguish social groups carefully?
Broad categories such as "working class" or "ethnic minorities" may conceal differences within groups.
4. Is the evidence about victims or offenders?
The 2022 examiner report shows that students frequently lost focus by explaining offending when asked about victimisation.
5. Does one explanation account for the whole pattern?
Deprivation may explain some class differences, while behavioural exposure or identity-based targeting may explain others.
These questions produce focused AO3.
Comparing explanations of victimisation
Explanation | Main idea | Possible evaluation |
Deprivation | Disadvantaged groups may experience greater exposure to some crimes | Does not explain every individual victim |
Unequal protective resources | Some groups have fewer resources available to protect themselves | Strongly connects victimisation to class inequality |
Area deprivation | Living in higher-crime deprived areas may increase exposure | Area effects should not be confused with characteristics of every resident |
Victim precipitation | Behaviour may contribute to exposure to risky situations | Can underplay structural causes if treated as the whole explanation |
Violence and exposure | Groups involved in more violent settings may also experience greater victimisation | Offending and victimisation must remain conceptually distinct |
Identity-based targeting | Some ethnic groups may experience greater risks through hate crime | Not all ethnic groups have identical experiences |
This makes it easier to build comparative evaluation.
Evaluating positivist and radical victimology directly
A useful exam structure is to compare the explanations around the same pattern.
Positivist argument
Some differences in victimisation may result from behaviour that increases exposure to risky situations.
Radical evaluation
This may overlook why some social groups are disproportionately located in deprived or high-risk environments.
Radical argument
Working-class victimisation may be increased by deprivation and lack of protective resources.
Positivist evaluation
Structural disadvantage alone may not explain variation between individuals in similar social positions.
Overall judgement
Victimisation may be produced through an interaction between:
social structure + resources + environment + behaviour
This avoids the false choice that either individuals or social structures must explain everything.
The danger of drifting into offending
Victimisation questions can be challenging because many familiar Crime and Deviance theories focus on offenders.
AQA's 2022 examiner report says Question 3 was the most challenging question on that paper. Students:
struggled to develop item hooks;
showed limited developed knowledge of victims;
frequently drifted into explanations of offending.
A useful test after every paragraph is:
Have I explained why someone becomes a victim, or have I accidentally switched to why someone commits crime?
If it is the second, return to the question.
Building an evaluative essay
Suppose the question asks:
"Evaluate sociological explanations of patterns of victimisation."
A strong structure could be:
Establish that victimisation is socially distributed rather than random.
Radical victimology: deprivation and lack of resources increase working-class vulnerability.
Develop area effects: deprived communities may have greater exposure to crime.
Evaluate with positivist victimology: behavioural patterns may also affect exposure.
Victim precipitation: explain carefully and evaluate the extent to which victims contribute to their own risks.
Ethnicity: hate crime demonstrates that identity-based targeting can create other patterns.
Evaluate the evidence: distinguish victim surveys, official records and perceived risk.
Judgement: structural inequalities provide an important explanation, but victimisation patterns may result from several interacting social processes.
This creates a genuine sociological debate rather than simply listing groups at risk.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Victimisation | The experience of becoming a victim of crime. | Use when discussing the social distribution of experiences of crime. |
Victimology | The sociological study of victims and victimisation. | Use as the overall term for theories and evidence concerning victims. |
Positivist victimology | An approach examining factors such as behaviour and exposure that may contribute to victimisation risk. | Use when analysing victim precipitation and individual risk. |
Radical victimology | An approach emphasising structural inequalities that make some groups more vulnerable to victimisation. | Link to deprivation, social class and access to resources. |
Victim precipitation | The idea that a victim's behaviour may contribute to circumstances that increase victimisation risk. | Use carefully when explaining positivist victimology. |
Deprivation | Social or economic disadvantage and lack of resources. | Use to explain class differences in vulnerability to crime. |
Victim survey | Research asking people about their experiences of becoming victims of crime. | Use when evaluating evidence about victimisation. |
Dark figure of crime | Crime absent from official crime statistics. | Use when explaining why official evidence may not capture every victimisation experience. |
Hate crime | Crime in which victims may be targeted because of a social identity. | Use as an AQA-supported example of ethnic differences in victimisation risk. |
Perceived risk | A person's belief about how likely they are to become a victim. | Distinguish from actual experiences of victimisation. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
AQA's June 2022 examiner report provides especially useful guidance because victims of crime was directly assessed in Question 3.
Examiner hint: Revise victimology as a distinct area. The 2022 report states that students often lacked sufficiently developed knowledge about victims, making this the most challenging question on that paper.
Examiner hint: Do not answer a victimisation question with an essay about offending. AQA specifically identified drift into explanations of social-class differences in offending when the question asked why people become victims.
Examiner hint: Find the two separate hooks in the item. In 2022 these were differences in deprivation/resources and higher recorded levels of violence among lower socio-economic groups. Students struggled when they could not identify and develop these hooks.
Examiner hint: Apply sociological theory to the item rather than repeating it. AQA's top band required developed use of radical victimology and positivist victimology to explain the two class differences.
Examiner hint: In a 10-mark analyse question, analysis and evaluation can include considering the extent to which victims precipitate their own risk. Simply describing class inequality without making the victimisation link is insufficient.
Examiner hint: Keep your focus precise. AQA's broader examiner guidance repeatedly rewards students who develop the exact issue in the question rather than writing everything they know about the wider topic.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Explaining why the working class commits crime when asked about victimisation
Why this is incorrect: The 2022 examiner report identifies this exact drift.
How to improve: Complete every paragraph with:
therefore this increases or reduces the risk of becoming a victim.
Mistake: Treating victimisation as randomly distributed
Why this is incorrect: AQA's 2022 question explicitly assumes social-class differences in the risk of becoming a victim.
How to improve: Explain how social position can affect deprivation, resources, environment and exposure.
Mistake: Saying deprivation causes victimisation without explaining how
Why this is incorrect: This identifies a correlation but not the sociological process.
How to improve: Develop the chain:
deprivation → fewer protective resources → greater vulnerability to some offences → increased victimisation risk
Mistake: Treating positivist and radical victimology as the same explanation
Why this is incorrect: AQA distinguishes them in its 2022 mark scheme.
How to improve: Remember:
positivist → behaviour and precipitation
radical → structure, deprivation and resources
Mistake: Using victim precipitation to say victims are responsible for crimes committed against them
Why this is incorrect: Victim precipitation is an explanation of how behaviour may affect exposure to risk. It does not establish that the offender is no longer responsible for the offence.
How to improve: Use cautious language such as "may contribute to exposure to risk", then evaluate the explanation against structural factors.
Mistake: Treating fear of crime as evidence of actual victimisation
Why this is incorrect: AQA recognises that media representations may exaggerate perceived risk, particularly among women.
How to improve: Distinguish:
fear or perceived risk
from
actual experience of victimisation.
Mistake: Assuming all ethnic groups experience the same victimisation pattern
Why this is incorrect: AQA's 2024 mark scheme refers specifically to some ethnic groups experiencing greater risks, for example through hate crime.
How to improve: Avoid treating broad ethnic categories as internally identical.
Mistake: Assuming official crime statistics record every victim
Why this is incorrect: Not every experience necessarily enters official criminal justice records.
How to improve: Use victim surveys and the dark figure to evaluate the evidence.
Mistake: Naming victimologists without explaining their ideas
Why this is incorrect: AQA lists many potentially relevant sociologists, but names alone do not demonstrate knowledge.
How to improve: Prioritise accurate concepts and causal explanations. Only use a named sociologist when you can develop their argument accurately.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define victimisation. [1 mark]
Question 2
Explain one reason why deprivation may increase the risk of becoming a victim of crime. [2 marks]
Question 3
Outline two reasons why working-class people may experience a higher risk of some forms of victimisation. [4 marks]
Question 4
Outline three sociological reasons why experiences of victimisation may differ between social groups. [6 marks]
Question 5
Explain two differences between positivist and radical victimology. [4 marks]
Question 6
Read Item A and answer the question that follows.
Item A
Some households have fewer resources available to protect themselves and their property from crime. They may also live in areas where exposure to offending is greater.
Applying material from Item A, analyse two ways in which social inequality may contribute to differences in victimisation. [10 marks]
Question 7
Read Item B and answer the question that follows.
Item B
Some sociologists explain victimisation by examining the behaviour of individuals and whether this increases their exposure to risky situations. Other sociologists argue that victimisation is better explained by structural inequalities and unequal access to resources.
Applying material from Item B, analyse two sociological explanations of patterns of victimisation. [10 marks]
Question 8
Read Item C and answer the question that follows.
Item C
Victimisation is not distributed equally across society. Deprivation and unequal resources may increase the vulnerability of some groups, while other sociologists focus on behaviour that may increase exposure to risk. Evidence about victimisation may also vary according to the way crime is measured.
Applying material from Item C and your knowledge, evaluate sociological explanations of patterns of victimisation. [30 marks]
Answers and mark scheme
Question 1
1 mark for an accurate definition referring to the experience of becoming a victim of crime.
Example answer: Victimisation is the experience of becoming a victim of crime.
Question 2
Award up to 2 marks.
Example answer: People experiencing deprivation may have fewer resources available to protect themselves or their property. This may make them more vulnerable to offences such as theft or vandalism.
One mark identifies the reason. One further mark develops how it affects victimisation risk.
Question 3
Award 2 marks for each of two developed reasons.
Possible answers include:
Lack of resources: Working-class households may have fewer resources available to protect themselves or property, increasing vulnerability to some crimes.
Area deprivation: Working-class people may be more likely to live in deprived areas with higher levels of crime, increasing their exposure to offending.
Violent environments: Where lower socio-economic groups experience higher recorded levels of violent behaviour, individuals may also face greater exposure to situations in which they become victims.
The two explanations must be genuinely distinct.
Question 4
Award 2 marks for each of three different reasons.
Possible answers include:
Deprivation: disadvantaged groups may have fewer resources with which to protect themselves.
Residential or area exposure: living in a higher-crime environment may increase opportunities for victimisation.
Victim precipitation: some behavioural patterns may increase exposure to risky situations.
Violent social settings: involvement in environments with greater recorded violence may increase the likelihood of becoming a victim.
Identity-based targeting: some ethnic groups may experience a greater risk through hate crime.
Unequal access to protective resources: social inequalities may produce different capacities to avoid victimisation.
One mark identifies the reason and the second develops the victimisation link.
Question 5
Award 2 marks for each of two clearly developed differences.
Possible answers include:
Behaviour versus structure: Positivist victimology examines how behaviour or exposure may contribute to victimisation risk, whereas radical victimology focuses more strongly on structural inequalities such as deprivation.
Precipitation versus resources: Positivist victimology may examine whether victims precipitate some risk through behaviour, whereas radical victimology explains greater vulnerability through unequal access to protective resources.
Question 6
Students should develop both hooks from Item A.
Hook 1: fewer protective resources
Radical victimology can explain class differences through deprivation. People with fewer economic resources may be less able to protect homes or property, increasing vulnerability to crimes such as theft or vandalism.
Hook 2: greater exposure through area
Social inequality can affect where people live. Individuals living in deprived areas with higher levels of crime may encounter greater opportunities for victimisation.
8 to 10 marks: Good knowledge and understanding of two ways, two developed applications of Item A and clear analysis linking social inequality to victimisation.
4 to 7 marks: Reasonable knowledge with some successful application and analysis, although one point may be more developed.
1 to 3 marks: Limited knowledge, weak item application or drift into explaining offending.
0 marks: No relevant material.
Question 7
Students should develop the two contrasting hooks from Item B.
Hook 1: behaviour and risky situations
This can be developed through positivist victimology and victim precipitation. Behaviour may increase exposure to situations in which victimisation becomes more likely. Applied to class, AQA has accepted higher recorded violent behaviour among lower socio-economic groups as one possible route.
Hook 2: structural inequalities
This can be developed through radical victimology. Deprivation and unequal resources may leave some groups less able to protect themselves and more exposed to crime.
Analysis should compare:
individual behaviour and exposure
with
structural disadvantage and vulnerability.
8 to 10 marks: Good knowledge and understanding of both explanations, developed application of Item B and clear comparative analysis.
4 to 7 marks: Reasonable knowledge with some application, but one approach may be insufficiently developed.
1 to 3 marks: Limited knowledge or a general discussion of victims with little theoretical application.
0 marks: No relevant material.
Question 8
This question requires knowledge and understanding, application, analysis and evaluation.
Indicative content may include:
Patterns of victimisation
victimisation as socially distributed;
social class;
deprivation;
unequal access to resources;
area exposure;
some ethnic differences in victimisation;
hate crime.
Students should distinguish patterns of victimisation from patterns of offending.
Radical victimology
structural inequality;
deprivation;
access to resources;
working-class vulnerability;
ability to protect people or property;
deprived areas and exposure to crime.
Students may argue that victimisation reflects wider social inequalities and unequal life chances.
Positivist victimology
individual behaviour;
exposure to risk;
victim precipitation;
higher recorded violent behaviour and possible increased victimisation risk.
Students should use victim precipitation carefully and analyse rather than assume that victims are responsible for offending against them.
Evaluation of positivist victimology
behavioural exposure may contribute to some risks;
structural conditions may shape the situations in which that behaviour occurs;
victim precipitation may provide only a partial explanation.
Evaluation of radical victimology
highlights structural inequality and unequal protective resources;
may explain important social-class patterns;
structural position alone may not explain all individual variation in victimisation.
Ethnicity
some ethnic groups experiencing greater victimisation risks;
hate crime;
identity-based targeting.
This can demonstrate that class-based explanations do not account for every victimisation pattern.
Evidence
victim surveys;
official statistics;
dark figure;
distinction between actual victimisation and perceived risk;
limitations of relying on one source of evidence.
Media
media may exaggerate perceived victimisation risk;
fear of crime should not automatically be treated as evidence of actual victimisation.
25 to 30 marks: Sound, conceptually detailed knowledge of a range of victimisation patterns and explanations. Item material is applied accurately. Analysis and evaluation explicitly compare positivist and radical victimology, distinguish victimisation from offending, evaluate the evidence and reach a reasoned judgement.
19 to 24 marks: Accurate and reasonably broad or deep knowledge. Application is largely focused with some explicit evaluation, although parts may be incomplete.
13 to 18 marks: Largely accurate but narrower knowledge. Application may be limited and evaluation may rely mainly on juxtaposing positivist and radical approaches.
7 to 12 marks: Limited and undeveloped knowledge with weak application and little evaluation. There may be drift into explanations of offending.
1 to 6 marks: Very limited relevant material or a general discussion of crime without sustained focus on victims.
0 marks: No relevant material.
A strong conclusion should recognise that patterns of victimisation cannot be explained solely through either individual behaviour or social structure. AQA's 2022 material demonstrates that deprivation and unequal access to resources can increase working-class vulnerability, while positivist victimology draws attention to behavioural exposure and victim precipitation. Other patterns, such as hate-crime victimisation, show that identity can also matter. The most convincing sociological explanation therefore treats victimisation as the product of unequal social conditions, different forms of exposure and the particular type of crime being examined, while remaining critical of the evidence used to measure those experiences.
Comments