VICTIM PRECIPITATION IS AN UMBRELLA TERM ENCOMPASSING A VARIETY OF PROVOCATIVE ACTS BY VICTIMS AND A WIDE RANGE OF CONDUCT AND MOTIVES ON THE PART OF BOTH PRECIPITATOR AND DEFENDANT. ALTHOUGH THE INCIDENCE OF VICTIM-PRECIPITATED CRIME IS DIFFICULT TO GAUGE, STATISTICS REPORTED IN 1969 BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE CAUSES AND PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE INDICATE THAT VICTIM-PRECIPITATED CRIME IS NOT A NUMERICALLY INSIGNIFICANT PHENOMENON. THE LACK OF FORMAL RECOGNITION OF VICTIM PRECIPITATION IS REVEALED IN AN ANALYSIS OF VICTIM PRECIPITATION AS AN ELEMENT OF AN OFFENSE, AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, AS CAUSATION, AND AS A BASIS FOR A REDUCED CHARGE. ALTHOUGH THE CONCEPTS OF VICTIM AND THIRD-PARTY PRECIPITATION HAVE A LONG HISTORY IN CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THEM AS FORMAL CONSIDERATIONS HAS RESULTED IN THEIR UNEVEN APPLICATION. OFTEN OFFENDERS IN ANALOGOUS PRECIPITATED SITUATIONS ARE TREATED VERY DIFFERENTLY. PRECIPITATIVE CONDUCT MAY BE THE BASIS FOR TOTAL EXONERATION, CHARGE REDUCTION, OR SENTENCE MITIGATION, OR MAY HAVE NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON DISPOSITION. WHEN VICTIM PRECIPITATION IS CONSIDERED INFORMALLY BY POLICE, PROSECUTORS, JUDGES, OR JURIES, ITS EFFECT DEPENDS ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DECISIONMAKER. PRECIPITATED OFFENDERS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL SANCTIONS, BUT PRECIPITATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AT SENTENCING. THE LAW SHOULD NOT CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE ROLE OF THE PRECIPITATOR, WHOSE TENDENCIES CAN LEAD TO FURTHER CRIMES. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR PRECIPITATORS ARE APPROPRIATE IN CASES OF INTENTIONAL PRECIPITATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY STATE LEGISLATURES. LIABILITY FOR PRECIPITATORS WOULD CONSTITUTE LEGAL RECOGNITION OF THE MORAL OBLIGATION OF EVERY PERSON NOT TO ENCOURAGE CRIME NEEDLESSLY. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED).