A Comparative Analysis of Victim-Oriented Fault-Based Theories in Criminology

Abstract

Background: In recent decades, victim-oriented approaches have emerged in criminology as a response to the dominance of offender-centered perspectives, drawing increased attention to the role of the victim in the process of crime occurrence. Among these, fault-based victim-oriented theories seek to provide a more comprehensive explanation of crime by emphasizing the interaction between the offender and the victim. However, these theories face significant conceptual and normative challenges, particularly in delineating the boundary between scientific analysis and victim-blaming. Objective: This study aims to clarify these challenges and to evaluate the validity and analytical utility of fault-based victim-oriented theories in explaining criminal phenomena. Method: The research adopts a qualitative, descriptive‑analytical approach based on library research. Data were collected from authoritative criminological and victimological sources and analyzed through thematic analysis and comparative theoretical examination. Findings: The results indicate that while these theories enrich criminological analysis by offering an interactive understanding of crime and victimization, their application without a clear normative framework may undermine the principle of offender responsibility and reinforce victim-blaming narratives. Conclusion: Accordingly, the application of these approaches in criminal policy and criminological analysis requires a redefinition of their normative boundaries. Such an approach allows for preserving their explanatory value while preventing the unjust attribution of fault to victims.