Compensation to victims of wrongdoing is an ancient tradition which persisted through the Middle Ages, but declined in importance in the 19th century when the emerging social sciences focused on reforming criminals. Traditional victim issues include the belief that the criminal justice system victimizes the victim twice, the appropriateness of the term 'victimless' crimes, victim compensation programs where costs have dictated many restrictions, national crime surveys of victimization experiences, and victim/witness services. These concepts all have shortcomings, and much work is needed to understand the victim's role and needs and to implement victim services without redtape, eligibility restrictions, and time delays. Major areas of victimological inquiry have included the extent that a victim influences or even precipitates crime, the involvement of good-samaritan bystanders, and individual and group reactions to victims as legitimate victims. Hans Von Hentig has identified the following types of people as most susceptible to crime: the young, the female, the elderly, the mental defective, the immigrant, the depressed, the wanton, the lonesome, and the heartbroken. Others have added the teenager, the homosexual, and the prison inmate. Leroy Lamborn states that much crime is precipitated by the victim through invitation, facilitation, provocation, perpetration, cooperation, and instigation. Another research team has shown a critical relationship between fear of crime, bystander surveillance, and increases in crime due to criminals' increased boldness when citizens remain in their homes and surveillance decreases. The paper includes 47 footnotes.