Category: Victim

A “victim” is defined through social and legal implications. The consensus for the social use of the term is any living being that faces hardship that was inflicted by any cause. In Canada, the general legal definition for a victim is a person who faces physical or emotional harm, or economic loss, caused by a criminal offense. Vulnerable populations for overall victimization include homeless individuals due to lack of security, minorities (particularly Indigenous populations in Canada), young adult males who also have larger offender rates, those with low socioeconomic status, and disabled individuals. For the purpose of this paper, we will consider the primary victim, meaning the individual directly emotionally or physically harmed as the result of an offense. Overall, “victim” is a broad term that can apply to many people, but occurs more frequently in some populations.

Perreault (2015) noted 2014 Canadian victimization rates. Per 1,000 individuals with a history of homelessness, 358 incidents of violent crime occurred, while the rate for non-homeless Canadians was 71. Thus, socioeconomic status and security relate to victimization of violent crime in Canada. Females were substantially more likely to be a victim of sexual assault, while males were slightly more likely to be a victim of physical assault. The highest rates of violent crime victimization occurred in the age 20 to 24 with surrounding age groups nearly as high. In 35% of cases in which physical abuse occurred before the age of 15, the father was the perpetrator. 93% of child maltreatment cases were never identified to authorities. Altogether, these statistics show systemic issues that confirm the expected trends, and help us better understand Tim’s risk factors.

Tim was a primary victim because he directly faced several forms of abuse that led to physical and psychological harm. As a child, he faced neglect by his birth parents and ended up in foster care, where he was a victim of physical abuse. As a homeless teenager trying to escape the abuse, a man acted as a friend and then made him a victim of sex trafficking. Meanwhile, Tim faced verbal and physical abuse on the streets and used drugs to cope with the pain. One attack was racially motivated. While on the streets, he was approaching an age associated with high criminalization and victimization for males. However, as a teenage male, he was not the stereotypical sexual assault victim. Thus with the vulnerabilities and abuse Tim faced, we can assess his susceptibility and experiences as a victim.

The public’s view towards a victim of a crime relies heavily on preconceived ideas of what a victim should be. The “ideal victim” reflects society’s expectation of a true victim, and is someone who is physically weak, was victimized by a stranger while performing a respectable duty, and has the strength to publicize his or her own victimization. Tim is not an ideal victim because he was a homeless sex worker and a drug user at the time of his victimization, and these traits are generally not considered respectable. Being a male, Tim would likely be perceived as too physically strong to be an ideal victim of a sexual crime. Tim was also uncomfortable with reaching out for treatment as a male victim of sexual abuse due to societal views. These assumptions towards the ideal victim are unfair because he was a minor who was trafficked by an adult and was forced into sexual activities by other older men. Also, being uncomfortable to speak out does not make a person deserving of harm. These systemic expectations of a victim undermine Tim’s suffering and the culpability of his abusers.

Victim precipitation refers to identifying the involvement of the victim in provoking the perpetrator to commit the offense. Since Tim does not fit the profile of an ideal victim, the public is more likely to blame him for his own victimization. This victim blaming would typically target his homelessness, his drug abuse, and his profession as a sex worker. Although these traits are risk factors for victimization, it is unfair to suggest the victim allowed the crime to occur. Tim was homeless because he was taken away from his birth parents and then abused by his foster parents. He took drugs to psychologically escape a lifetime of neglect and abuse. He was a sex worker because he was trafficked by a predator. A key criticism of victim precipitation is the implication that victims fall on a continuum of responsibility, which is an unfair assessment to those who are less privileged. Ultimately, the disadvantages Tim faced do not make him responsible for being a victim.

From the Rational Choice Perspective, an offender has a specific reason for committing a crime against a particular victim (Scott, 2016, p. 66). This approach assumes that the perpetrator has logic and morals that are comparable to the victim. Thus, this perspective ignores power imbalances and the possibility of a non-targeted attack. For example, Tim’s sex trafficker forces him to perform an uncomfortable activity with an aggressive client. Tim as a teenager might feel powerless to decline, but this would still be statutory rape and sexual assault. Additionally, the client did not target Tim personally, but his trafficker perhaps chose him out of convenience. This perspective generally exemplifies victim precipitation in that the victim is automatically perceived as part of the offense, while a trafficked teenager was clearly abused into his position and should not be seen as culpable for being victimized.

The Critical Theory assesses the dynamics of the victim and the offender by determining any power imbalances. This approach is most appropriate to Tim’s case because it eliminates victim precipitation. Although Tim had been taking drugs and illegally worked in the sex industry, the power imbalances he faced led to his overall situation. He did not chose to leave his parents or to be abused by his foster parents. All individuals involved, including Child Protective Services held power over his wellbeing. His sex trafficker was much older than him, and offered him needed money that a social support service should have provided. Assuming that a young homeless teenager with a history of being abused truly had a choice over his life path is unfair. Thus, by addressing and prioritizing the power imbalances, we observe that Tim can be fairly assessed through his role solely as a victim.

Tim was ultimately failed by the criminal justice system. Having birth parents who were addicted to drugs and could not raise him sufficiently, Child Protective Services took him from his home. However, he was verbally and physically abused once he was in foster care, which should have brought him to safety but was ironically the start of his direct victimization. Once he was finally able to receive justice for the victimization by his trafficker, the crown prosecutor asked him to be a witness. Thus, the criminal justice system was more interested in Tim’s role as a witness than as a traumatized victim of several types of abuse. Nevertheless, Tim became a healthy advocate for supporting victimized youth through his career as a counsellor. Despite inadequate treatment by the justice system, Tim resiliently recovered and is able to help others who experience similar victimization.

Cases of victimization in which fostered youth run away should be approached uniquely. Whitbeck, Hoyt, and Yoder (1999) found that young runaway males in particular tended to externalize their suffering by becoming friends with others who perpetuate reckless and antisocial behaviours. These young males also had a significant correlation between depression and early abuse in the home. Tim became a victim of this pattern, as he befriended a man that manipulated him into sex work and initially used illicit drugs to cope. Although Tim was able to recover, many similar victims unfortunately continue the behavioural cycle or fail to cope adequately, and it is important to identify risk factors early on.

Victims often have a poor experience with the criminal justice system that interferes with the needed recovery process. These victims may feel that police do not take them seriously based on their background, or they receive insufficient support following the trial. Fortunately, a police officer identified Tim as a minor who was a victim of sex trafficking, and prompted him towards a social support program. However, even with this help, Tim felt uncomfortable being a male sexual assault victim in a predominantly female therapy group, and felt others would not understand. Feeling isolated after going through a life filled with abuse only adds to the pain of being a victim. This shame and uncertainty of where to get help can perhaps account for the fact that the average male victim of sexual abuse only seeks therapy at about age 45. Being a victim affects individuals far beyond the incident, and the criminal justice system should support these victims in finding the appropriate social services in order to recover.

The Office of National Statistics stated than in England and Wales, in the year ending June 2019, there was 11.1 million criminal offences. Does this mean that there are 11.1 million victims? Are all these victims the same and do they go through the same experiences? Victimology is essentially the study of everything to do victims of crime and how they are affected. In this essay I will aim to provide a deeper understanding of Victimology as a branch of Criminology, the history of this field of study and how it has developed immensely over time. I will explain how and why this development has happened, along with how it is continuing to develop simultaneously with modern day crime. Furthermore, I will try outline the victims’ right movement and what effect this has had on how victims are treated in the criminal justice system. In more recent times, the way the victim has been treated has changed, as the victim is more involved in the criminal justice process, this is due to the development of Victimology and how it has become more prominent and recognised in modern day Criminology.

It is important to understand what a ‘victim’ is before you begin to understand Victimology. A victim is ‘someone or something that has been hurt, damaged, or killed or has suffered, either because of the actions of someone or something else’ (Cambridge Dictionary, 2019). This includes anyone who has been victimised whether that is someone who has been physically assaulted, someone who is involved in a car crash where a crime is committed, or a victim of fraud. However, victims are not always directly involved, for example when a homicide occurs, there’s a whole range of victims; the family of the deceased, the family of the attacker and the witnesses of the incident. Also, you must look at the professionals and the possible effect the crime may have on them; for example, it is the job of family liaison officers to inform the family after a homicide, which may have serious emotional effects on them, does this make them a victim of crime? It also needs to be considered how long someone remains a victim of crime, for example someone who has experienced child abuse or a sexual assault may experience emotional trauma from those incidents for years to come where as someone who is a victim of fraud may not experience the same psychological effects (UK Essays, 2019).

Victimology is the study of ‘the people who incur harms because of illegal activities. This field of study includes the handling of victims, the physical and mental conditions of victims, as well as their economic hardships’ (Karmen, 2010). This extension of Criminology looks at people who are affected, both emotionally and physically, by the actions of the offenders. Karmen (2010) goes on from this and states that Victimology is a ‘subject approach to the plight of victims’ because the issues that Victimology studies are from the standpoint of ‘morality, ethics, philosophy, personalised reactions, and intense emotions.’. What I think Karmen means by this is that Victimology is a sensitive subject as Victimologists study personal perspectives and emotions and in some cases, these feelings are very extreme- especially when it comes to victims of sexual assault and murder victims’ families for example. So, what do Victimologists do? Victimologists don’t just try to understand the interactions between the perpetrator and the victim, it looks at the experiences that the victim goes through within the criminal justice system and the wider society (Karmen, 2010). The ‘victim’, in any case, has many interactions with different individuals and organisations and what Karmen highlights is that Victimology isn’t as simple as the Victim and the offender; it looks at the complex issues that arise. One example is Victimology may observe and study at the way a victim is treated by the criminal justice system and the police and the support they get from these organisations after the incident, during the trial, and after any convictions. To clarify, within victimology, ‘the victim’s experience, events leading to victimisations, victimisations themselves and the response of society and organisations to victimisations are all studied’ (Dussich, 2006).

The word “Victimology” itself first appeared in a book published by forensic psychiatrist Fredric Wertham in 1949; it was used to describe the study of individuals harmed by criminals (Karmen 2007). Since then Victimology has developed, grown and advanced and had a huge impact on the way Sociologists’ and Criminologists’ alike look at crime. Karmen (2007) stated that in the 1950s there was a “re-emergence of the victim” and this was due to Criminologists’ realising that the victims, who are the most affected by the criminal acts, were rarely involved in the criminal justic process. It soon became acknowledged by various parties such as the media, sociologists’ and the criminal justice system itself that ‘victims were forgotten figures in the criminal justice process whose needs and wants had been systematically overlooked but merited attention’ (Karmen 2007). However, although Victimology was first being studied in the 40s and 50s, it has only been in the last 40 years that victims of criminal acts have began to play a more active role in the criminal process (Manikis 2019). In the 1970s, following the Victim rights movement in the U.S, courts in the UK began to allow the victims to become a more of a central focus in the courts, which got the ball rolling for the Victim Rights movement within England and Wales (Maguire, 1991). Manikis (2019) explains the reason for the emergence of the victim’s right movement throughout the late 20th century was due to the socioeconomic needs of victims; this led to a change in policies and procedures to provide more support for victims. For example, England was one of the leading countries to enforce the Victims Compensation Act 1964 which saw victims of crime (usually violent crimes) receive a state compensation (Mankis 2019).

The Victims movement within the UK was largely run by the ‘National Association of Victim Support Schemes’, which rather than arguing for the rights of victims, it simply provided services to people who had been effected by criminal activity (Maguire, 1991). In 1974, the first victim support scheme was set up in Bristol, and by 1978, 30 similar schemes existed throughout England and Wales (Victim Support, 2019). Every county in England and Wales had at least one Victim support scheme by 1986- these schemes provided and continue to provide “information, advice and support” to all victims of crime (Victim Support, 2019). In 2003, the support to victims was expanded to those who were considered ‘secondary victims’ of crime, and in every court in England and Wales- witness schemes were set up. Still to this day the advice and support that Victim Support gives to victims of crime remains vital to many people that need their services; last year they were in contact to 849,326 victims of criminal activities (Victim support 2019).

The experience for victims within the criminal justice system has improved massively within the last twenty years due to the work of Victimology and they now receive more support than ever. However, this was not always the case, in the early 20th century, Criminology was largely based around ‘who the criminal is, who violated the law and why they engaged in illegal activities’ (Karmen, 2010). It wasn’t until the 40s and 50s, Karmen says, until Criminologist realised the important role that Victims play in the ‘criminal problem’ (2010). Despite this, the important role that victims now play in the criminal justice system is not entirely revolutionary; Kearon & Godfrey (2007) explained in their journal that prior to the end of the end of the 19th century, only crimes that were bought forward by the victim would have been dealt with. In Anglo-Saxon England, the courts would only deal with crimes that were bought to them by the victim of the crime themselves, therefore if it wasn’t for the ‘activity’ of the victim, there would have been little to no crime reported.

Throughout the history of Victimology there has been many pioneers that have allowed it to become one of the most recognised branches of Criminology. Benjamin Mendelsohn (1900- 1998) was a French lawyer who studied victims while working on a rape defence case (1947) (Karmen 2005). He was one of the first to suggest the idea that there was often a strong interpersonal relationship between the rapist and their victim. Dr Stephen Schafer was also significant to the advancement of Victimology because he completed what some regard as the first textbook on Victimology (1968) as a subject, and it looked at the relationship between the victim and the offender. Schafers’ text involved interviews with criminals in which he tried to focus on victim culpability (Fergurson et al, 2009). Another Criminologist, called Dr Marvin Wolfgang, was the first Criminologist to present empirical data to support his claims within Victimology. Wolfgangs findings, Patterns of Criminal Homicide (1958), presented the results of homicide records, which conclude that ‘the homicides in the city of Philadelphia between 1948 and 1952 involved some element of victim contribution and participation’ (Doerner and Lab 2005). The field of Victimology was born due to Criminologists aim to ‘study victims for the purpose of answering social and legal questions’ (Ferguson, C. and Turvey, B, 2009).

Positivist Victimology is a specific type of Victimology that focuses on two aspects of victimisation: Why a victim may be more susceptible to becoming a victim of crime, and the relationships between victims and offenders that may lead to a crime being committed. (Miers, 1989). Positivist Victimology aims to identify the ‘environmental, cultural and personal circumstances that may make them at a higher risk of victimisation (Miers, 1989). However, this subsection of Victimology often comes under scrutiny as it is often seen as ‘victim blaming’; essentially implying that it’s the victims fault for being victimised (Tutor2U, 2019). Furthermore Tutor2U (2019) go on to say that Positivist Victimology takes some of blame away from the criminal; for example people shouldn’t leave there windows open, as this may increase the likelihood of you being burgled however an open shouldn’t be an invitation to enter a home and steal. Positivist Victimology ‘appears to blame victims for putting temptation in the way of criminals (Tutor2u, 2019).

In conclusion, Victimology is an ever-growing field of study, and if crime keeps growing and evolving at the rate it is- it will continue to develop. As technology advances more and more people are becoming victims of new crimes throughout. In 2019 there was 3.8 million fraud offences in the UK, which is a 15% increase from 2018 (Office of National Statistics 2019). Every day there is new crimes being committed due to the growth of technology and Victimology grows with it. The early development of victimology was largely based on Criminologist realising that victims had very little involvement in the criminal justice system despite being the person that is most affected by it (Karmen 2007).

“Criminology is the interdisciplinary study of crime as both an individual and social phenomenon, with research on the origins and forms of crime, its causes and consequences, and social and governmental reactions to it” (2019). A victim’s behavior plays a major role in their victimization. Victim’s “potential” is made up of a combination of biology, socialization, and chance. Evolution and history have given humans the ability to engage in violent behavior (Alvarez,2017). Since the 1950s, Benjamin Mendelsohn has been the first criminologist to create a victim typology. His analysis displayed six typologies of the victim-victimizer relationship. This essay will demonstrate an analysis of all six of the typologies along with examples. I will outline the different types of victim-blaming theories as well as how the victim-offender relationship is critiqued through many different perspectives. Furthermore, I will also explain how through systemic issues such as racism, sexism, classism, ableism, homophobia is shown poorly through the criminal justice system. Additionally, the notion of police brutality, specifically against women.

Benjamin Mendelsohn’s main concern was the victim’s precipitation, to what degree the victim is responsible for their victimization, adding with the criminal justice system. In 1956, he created a system of classification of victims and placed them into six categories and coined the term “victimology” (Allspach,2019). Beniamin Mendelson had six typologies of the victim-victimizer relationship. One is the completely innocent victim, which meant someone who did not contribute to the crime. This is an example of the saying “someone being at the wrong place at the wrong time.” In other words, could be a child or someone unaware of their victimization. Second, being the victim with minor guilt, which means someone who is unintentionally committing the action, like when a woman has a miscarriage or a person going to a party knowing that an assault might take place. Three is significant shares guilt, an example would be two people attempting to commit a crime together, like robbing a bank or store together. The fourth being the victim guilty, which means someone helped by provoking you to commit the crime. Fifty is the ideology of the victim is more guilty. Victim acts aggressively and is killed by the accused, who is acting in self-defence. Lastly, the sixth typology is simulating the victim. Which means someone who suffers from a mental disorder that think they are victims, someone “pretending to be a victim”. An example would be someone falsely reporting a crime they committed. Mendelsohn’s typology gives the impression that he believed no victim is entirely innocent when crimes are inflicted upon them. Moreover, Mendelsohn’s typologies are controversial because he believed that most victims had an unconscious attitude that led to their victimization. Von Hentig looked at victims of homicide and developed a typology that considered biological, sociological, and psychological factors (Scott,2016). Victim precipitation is also sometimes referred to as victim-blaming or victim facilitation and refers to the idea of shared responsibility between the offender and the victim in a victimizing event (Scott,2016). Behaviors that can be interpreted as contributing to victim precipitation are victim behaviors that bring about, in whole or in part, his or her victimization. Implicit in this definition is the assumption that the victimization process is an interaction between two or more people that results in victimization.

Accusing the victim refers to the tendency to hold victims of negative events responsible for those outcomes. While victim-blaming can occur in a variety of situations, it appears to be particularly likely in cases of sexual assault. In Mendelson’s typologies, he is initially victim-blaming. Typologies of victimization have different types of victim-blaming theories within three sections; Marvin Wolfgang introduced these theories. Each one of the theories being, victim precipitation, victim facilitation, and victim provocation (Allspach,2019). Victim precipitation analysis of how a victim’s interaction with the victimizer contributes to their victimization. An example would be, assaulting someone or robbery. Victim facilitation is a victim contributed to the event assuming full or shared responsibility between the offender and the victimizing event. As well as assigning victims as an active rather than a passive role. Victim provocation is a victim as the initial aggressor, an instigator. An example would be if a husband were to beat his wife and the wife uses self-defence and kills him, it is still on the husband. Thus, Marvin Wolfgang has these three theories, which made up of different theorists following these different typologies and go by them. Some theorists like Stephen Scheafer say it is the victim’s responsibility to prevent victimization, this is called “functional responsibility” (Allspach,2019). While other theorists like Karmen follow the theory of victim participation, victim provocation, victim co-operation, and victim compliance, the different types start from totally innocent going to fully responsible after each step. Von Hentig’s victim typology is raging from different classes, one being the general class that is weakest in society, from children, youth, elderly, mental disability to those who have an “artificial handicap” such as race, sex, and immigrants (Alvarex,2017). Furthermore, the psychological class lifestyle choices indicate a disturbance in self-preservation and put themselves at risk of Victimization. A lot of these theories fail to shed light on power relations between victim and offender, through the parts of victims and crimes from race, class, gender and interpretative power. The assumption that violence and crime lay within the control of the victim, with a lack of social, economic and political context. Furthering the development of victim-blaming, it is important to acknowledge the role of under-reporting among sexual violence cases. There are many criticisms to be investigated when it comes to the victim-victimizer relationship and the theories built around it. Certainly, by analyzing both the victim and the perpetrator, there is no bias being formed and both can be held accountable for their actions. However, Karmen makes the point of how dangerous it can be to blame the victims. Thus, by victim-blaming, we legitimize the victims and downplay the role of the victimizer as an encouraged offender (Scott, 2016). Von Hentig’s theory is most strongly associated with stereotyping, particularly when he considers women as “weak in society.” By labeling them, he undermines the female species, leaving more room for male supremacy to further evolve. This conclusively brings the ideas of under-reporting on sexual violence full circle (Gravelin, Biernat, & Bucher,2019).

An individual who engages in violence usually does so for many reasons, and even when there is a specific trigger, the behavior is also influenced by numerous factors, including biology, psychology, history, childhood trauma, and socialization. For example, someone who is insulted in a bar and lashes out at his enemy is responding predominantly to that insult, but his response is also dictated by his mood and temperament. His previous life experiences may also play a role, how bystanders respond, and a multiple of other factors. There is no one single cause that brings about violence in any given situation. One of Mendelsohn’s concentrations was rape, and the feminist movement found that sexual violence was based on power which is a man’s control over a woman. Feminists challenged the ideology that a woman was “asking for it” by dressing provocatively or appearing seductive (Allspach,2019). This ideology turned the blame on the victims of sexual violence rather than those who committed the crime. However, underreporting on sexual violence has much to do with how the types of victim-blaming operate. As many universities have to deal with sexual assault cases on campus, specifically in the sexiest ways. An example of a type of victim-blaming that a university had to deal was taken place at York University (Allspach,2019). In 2011, Toronto Police Officer Michael Sanguinetti used Crime prevention by saying that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.” Which was an act of police brutality against a woman. A police officer should provide victims with the reassurance that safety rather than blaming them for what is out of their control. Moreover, there have been many different groups opened up for people who are going through sexual assaults but even then, women are the ones to blame. Rape culture and the practice of victim-blaming are similar in this case both are dominating in American society specifically. Rape culture is what normalizes sexual violence and blames rape victims for the attacks against them in the criminal justice system in America (2017). Just like how the media represents man to be more dominant and even though a woman is becoming more involved with the media there still a big issue to how a woman is being shown. The effects media has on portraying rape is a very negative thing, media representation of rape on the outcome of real rape trials are also examined. The problematic links between rape culture, victim-blaming, media, and criminal justice practices are reviewed, and potential solutions are discussed. ‘The Hunting Ground’ is a documentary that shows how women and some men recounting on camera how they were raped at their schools and then subsequently denied justice by the schools. The documentary discusses sexual assault, through what the Whitehouse realized in 2014, how campus rapes are to be treated. Each of the women’s stories was very emotional and shows how much anger they had within them. This documentary is a good way to help represent women to be more careful about what goes on around campus. Starting from Harvard College to the University of California, which was under investigation by the Department of education for their handling of rape accusations. The issue is whether they violated federal laws, Title IX, which bans discrimination at colleges receiving federal money (2016). In addition, not only do woman face sexual violence but similarly to the LGBTQ community who goes through the same struggles and are targeted as victims of violence, discriminated against and denied services, the person’s behind the acts to so out of homophobic attitudes that serve maintain heterosexual privileged (Human Rights Education Associates,2003) The criminal justice system has failed in the eyes of women and LGBTQ community, but not so much in terms of the males. Therefore, this just goes to show how victim-blaming operates in the sexiest ways and plays a role in the under-reporting of sexual violence.

In conclusion, Benjamin Mendelsohn’s elaborates on six typologies, which show how he is victim blaming in six different levels. The criminal justice system works to popularize our minds with ideas of hegemonic masculinity and white supremacy, failing to advocate for women’s empowerment. We need to focus on the idea that the victim is the perpetrator to ensure the offender takes responsibility for the crime being committed. Sexual assault cases on campuses to show how the types of victim-blaming operate in sexist ways and may play a role in the under-reporting of sexual violence.

The label of ‘victim’ is a social construction, therefore it’s society that decides who is most worthy of it. Walklate (2018) argues that there’s a distinction between those who offend, and those who are victimised. The theoretical research into what we know about victimization is both contingent and contested in many ways depending on the type of discourse used, whether that’s derived from academic literature, political agenda, legislature or the media. Nile Christe (1986 as cited by Dignan, 2004) proposed the idea of the ideal victim. Christie identified 6 attributes that at the level of social policy, make up a legitimate victim status. These key attributes are as follows;

• The victim is weak compared to the offender, making the ideal victim to be sick, elderly, very young or female.
• The victim is not purposefully putting themselves at higher risk of victimization.
• The victim is blameless.
• The victim has no relation to the offender, or as Christie states “stranger”, potentially implying that the offender is an individual.
• That the offender is big and bad.
• The victim portrays a sense of sympathy to be viewed as a victim.

Whether or not this proposal of the ideal victim is correct is to be further discussed, however, it’s fair to assume that it’s academic research like this that would influence individuals’ perspectives of victims, and therefore influence their status within society. In addition to this, these views could also be used to determine the status of victims within a political context, consequently affecting potential reforms done by social and criminal justice policy makers. Regarding the majority of society, it’s possible that media presence could have a heavy influence on an individual’s perception, as literature like this could be used to determine what makes a victim news worthy. This, in turn, would not only potentially segregate certain victims from exposure, but it could also heavily affect the status of those whom they choose to call victims.

While criminology focuses on the relationship between crime and criminals, victimology is the focus of crime and its victims. The works of Von Hentig and Mendelsohn (1948; 1956 as cited by Wolhuter, Olley and Denham, 2008) are known to contain the earliest references to the role of victims in crime, and how they could precipitate their own victimisation. The work they created, known as positivist victimology, focused on attempting to find what distinguishes a victim from an ideal individual who doesn’t suffer crime. Von Hentig’s (1948 as cited by Burgess, Regehr and Roberts, 2010) study titled “In The Criminal and His Victim” identified categories of individuals who were more likely to become a victim, focusing mainly on the social and psychological variables that may have contributed to make them more prone to their own victimization. Mendelsohn’s approach similarly led to an estimation of how culpable a victim was in the incidence of a crime, concluding in an example where a husband murdered his wife and her lover; had it not been for the perversity of his former wife, he would never have been guilty (Mendelsohn, 1974 as cited by Wolhuter, Olley and Denham, 2008).

Von Hentig’s work particularly inspired a variety of other theorists who subsequently built on top of his theories. Amir (1971 as cited by Burgess, Regehr and Roberts, 2010), most controversially applied Victim Precipitation theory in his study titled Patterns of Forcible Rape, were he found that 19% of 645 rapes recorded by police in Philadelphia were victim precipitated. Wolfgang and Fattah (1958; 1971 as cited by Burgess, Regehr and Roberts, 2010) continued this more empirical way of researching, focusing more on specific crimes such as Criminal Homicide, Rape and Robbery. It can be concluded that positivist victimology, as described by Miers (1989, as cited by Mawby and Walklate, 1994) has three main features; the identification of factors which may produce patterns of victimization, a focus on interpersonal crimes of violence, and to identify victims who have contributed to their own victimization.

The perspective of an individual putting themselves in greater risk of being a victim was elaborated in Hindelang’s, Gottfredson’s and Garofalo’s (1978 as cited by Walters, 1990) lifestyle model, in which the likelihood of being victimized is evaluated through the consideration of lifestyle variables. Similarly, Cohen and Felson (1997 as cited by Lambert, 2017) developed routine activity theory. Both theories highlight that lifestyles and activities can potentially place an individual in situations where the likely-hood of them meeting an offender is higher. Miethe and Meier (1994 as cited by Finkelhor and Asdigian, 1996) argue that these two theories are essentially the same, stating that these models involve scenarios in which there is a motivated offender, a suitable target and an absence of protection. Here we can see similarities to the positivist approach to victimization. The most obvious of which is that the victim, is either consciously or not putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be victimised, and therefore precipitating it. This is a stark contrast to Christie’s previously mentioned ‘ideal victim’, as it goes against the notion of a blameless victim. As mentioned earlier, being female could potentially increase the likely-hood of being victimized, however, being a female is not a routine activity, and therefore may not allow the individual to prevent precipitation. If the potential offender is seeking a victim, then its possible that the routine activities of being a female could increase or lower the chances of being victimised. This would therefore affect the status of victims, in particular female victims because notions of victim blaming could become more apparent.

One of the most influential movements regarding the status of female victims was that of feminists. Radical Feminism critiqued the institution of patriarchy, regarding it as a form of oppression that overlooks all social institutions, such as education and ethnicity. Radical Feminism, as stated by Walklate (2018), aims to see social change in the form of political agenda on male violence against women. However, politically during the 1980’s they were still faced with the issue that men were in the majority. Because of this, policy-making and implementations were all male solutions, with Kelly (1988 as cited by Walklate, 2018) stating that minimal attention had been paid to how women define abuse and violence. This movement can be regarded as second wave feminism and as it increased, so did the amount of female representation within government. This started to influence legislation and policies, allowing for greater support towards the status of female victims within society.

Feminist Victimology criticises positivism for not considering the role of power relations between the victim and the offender. In 2017, the Crime Survey for England and Wales, otherwise known as CSEW, estimated that 20% of women and 4% of men have experienced some type of sexual assault. Furthermore, 5 out of 6 victims did not report their experiences to the police (Ons.gov.uk, 2018). As mentioned previously, Amir’s (1971, as cited by Burgess, Regehr and Roberts, 2010) research only focused on reports that were reported to the police and the same is to be told with Wolfgang’s and Fattah’s research. Taking a positivist approach to sexual violence has many flaws, as the theory relies on the individual to state that they are a victim, of which only 60% of female rape victims were prepared to do so in 2017 (Ons.gov.uk, 2018).

The feminist critique of the positivist approach is that it assumes that there is an appropriate level of behaviour that the victim has failed to keep; an argument that is directly linked with the previously mentioned routine activity and lifestyle theory. The effects of these theories on the status of victims can often be seen today. There are multiple examples featured in the media of how the police are seen to advise women to ‘always stick to well-lit streets’ and take multiple precautions when alone at night (BBC News, 2019). Increasing the sense, that in this situation it’s the victim’s fault if a crime or assault occurs. Victim Blaming and rape culture as cited by Thacker (2017), are both inherently linked, and that the normalization of the blaming of victims for their attacks can have a strong effect on the criminal justice system, influencing the outcomes of trials and the treatment of victims. As cited by Thacker (2017), a sixteen-year-old student was sexual abused by two classmates while she was in a defenceless intoxicated state. However, despite photographic evidence that was taken by the offenders themselves, the defence lawyers of the trial questioned her credibility as a witness due to her intoxication, and also went further by questioning a close friend of the victim, stating that she, the victim, had not been assaulted because she sometimes “lies about things” (Almasy, 2013 as cited by Thacker, 2017, p.89). Having had these attempts to prove that the victim may have precipitated her own victimisation, she was in turn revictimized in the criminal justice system. However, the largest part of her revictimization came in the form of the media. News reporters, as cited by Thacker (2017, p.89), are quoted to have expressed sympathy for the offenders, which was then echoed by individuals on social media, stating that the girl “wanted it” and that if you’re “drunk/slutty at a party, and embarrassed later, then just say you got raped.” Many of the feminist beliefs mentioned above can feature under the heading of Critical Victimology, which has the three main concepts of rights, citizenship and the state (Mawby and Walklate as cited by Newburn, 2017).

Victimization has often been used as a tool for political parties to gain a following, and this can have a direct effect on the status of victims. The earlier theories mentioned above tend to be criticised for being too theoretical, and not useful in terms of making social policy. Left and Right Realism are concerned with theory and research that should provide practical solutions. There are two main types of Realists. Firstly, there are those such as James Q. Wilson (1982 as cited by Kelling and Coles, 1997) who is a Right Realist who arguably created one of the most important theses that underpins the Rights ideology titled The Broken Window thesis, which considers crime from the perspective of political conservatism. He argues that traditional criminology is unhelpful to those who try to deal with it. An example of this is Cornish and Clarke’s rational choice theory which focuses on the decision making of why an individual commits a crime (Eriksson, 2011). Following this, Right Realists have a zero-tolerance approach to crime, focusing more specifically on street crime. As Wison (1995 as cited by Ugwudike, 2019) states, the Right justify this approach due to street crime causing direct victimization, which in turn, produces a greater fear of crime. However, there is also evidence that suggests that more powerful crimes produce a wider ranging, more severe victimization than street crimes (1995 as cited by Ugwudike, 2019).

Secondly there are Left Realists. There are many ideological similarities between Right and Left Realism. Just as the Right did, the Left also focused mainly on predatory street crimes, mainly by deprived communities. They appear to also share the Right Realist’s view that it’s an individual’s choice to commit a crime. Here, we again see a reflection of the ideas that have been mentioned previously in the rational choice theory. The difference between the two is that they propose different crime control measures. The Right solely focuses on the offending individual and the setting of the crime, whereas the Left Realist’s focus on the crime, and social context. The views on what is considered effective policing differs between the two also. The Right believes in police empowerment, whereas the Left proposes a more democratic, decentralised approach to policing. To summarise the main differences, as Friedrichs and Rothe (2011 as cited by DeKeseredy and Dragiewicz, 2011) stated, the Left primarily prioritises social justice over order, and place an emphasis on factors that are less positivistic.

Furedi (1997, as cited by Walklate, 2006) stated that observers from all developing countries on both sides of the Atlantic have commented on the growth of the culture of victimhood. Furthermore, Furedi (1997 as cited by Walklate, 2006) suggests that the recent growth of victim-hood could have a direct correlation with a shift in culture. The term itself, as supported by Dignan (2005 as cited by McGarry and Walklate, 2015) states that the title “victim” has had relatively recent connections with crime, specifically with the development of the criminal victimization survey in both America during the 1960s, and England and Wales during the late 1970s. The use of victim surveys was first introduced in America with the President’s crime commission in 1967 after serious urban rioting the previous year. The surveys purpose was to devise a more accurate way of measuring crime, in hopes to avoid some of the traditional methods based on police records. Another reason is that it’s possible that some victims may become reluctant to co-operate with the criminal justice system by reporting the crime. Using the previously mentioned case study, as cited by Thacker (2017) as an example, The notion of secondary victimization, which refers to how victims have felt so badly treated by the criminal justice system, that its comparable to being victimized all over again was evident in the study cited by Thacker (2017), and can also be seen in Edwards, Chambers and Millar’s (1984) ‘Investigating Sexual Assault’, were it was suggested that the tactics used in cases of sexual assault, purposefully implied that victims were to blame for their own victimisation.

Bateson (2012) stated that an individual is far more likely to participate in politics if they have been victimised. Reinforcing this, a big factor of victim visibility could potentially be linked with the role of the media. In cases such as the Moors Murders during the 1960s; Ian Bray and Myra Hindley were convicted of multiple counts of child murder, resulting in an intense amount of media attention (Dignan, 2004). Furthering this, the confessions of the two that followed in 1987 again, repeatedly resulted in media exposure, not just for offenders, but for the families of the victims (Maguire, Morgan and Reiner, 2007). In high profile criminal cases, the media have not only ensured greater visibility of the victims, but also have often portrayed the victims as a key voice about how ‘their’ offenders should be dealt with. A more recent example of this is that of the mother of Jamie Bulger, who actively campaigned against the release of two young men who murdered her son at the age of 10 (Maguire, Morgan and Reiner, 2007). This resulted in a letter writing campaign conducted by the Sun with the intended purpose to sway the Home Secretary’s decision of when they would be released (Parliament. House of Lords, 1997). The media can therefore play a vital role in providing a public platform to campaign for criminal justice reforms, allowing for a positive change that directly effects the status of victims. A great example of this is the campaign for the introduction of ‘Sarah’s law’, a Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme that allowed parents controlled access to information relating to convicted child offenders living in the immediate surrounding area (Dignan, 2004).

While in some cases the media can be used in a positive way, there are many cases where it negatively affects the status of victims, and this becomes more apparent when you factor in the previous theories that have been mentioned. According the CSEW statistics, 1 in 4 people (26.2%) said they thought that they were either very, or likely to be a victim of crime within the next year (Ons.gov.uk, 2019). However, in more detail, the accuracy of these perceptions varies greatly by age group. Those aged between 16 to 24 had the tendency to underestimate their victimisation, while those aged 35 and over had the opposite tendency of overestimating their potential likeliness of being victimised (Ons.gov.uk, 2019). It could be argued that these tendencies could be supported by lifestyle and routine activity theory, as it would seem likely that younger adults, place themselves in scenarios such as clubbing, were the risk of victimization is dramatically increased. Adding to this, it could also be argued that individuals make decisions based upon their assumptions of crime and victimization. In addition to age, there are clear gender related differences featured in the surveys. Women were found to be more likely to worry about crime, but also to be twice as likely to worry about violent crime compared to men (ONS 2014 as cited by Newburn, 2017) This continued theme that some individuals suffer crime more than others is termed Repeat victimization, where it was found that crime is unevenly distributed both socially and geographically (Doerner and Lab, 2010).

Victims, until recently have been a minimal part of the criminal justice system. Dignan (2005 as cited by Newburn 2017) described the developments of the past three decades as an era of ‘disenfranchisement’ and that victims of crime have often been treated with neglect and sometimes with harsh and insensitive treatment. However, only in the past three decades has there been increased government attention towards the victims of crime, resulting in a substantial amount of services aimed towards meeting victim needs, and just as important, victim rights. Compensation schemes, also known associated with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 were of the first actions that formally recognised the needs of victims (Legislation.gov.uk, 2019). The CICA uses the notion that ‘blameless’ victims are more worthy of compensation, of which is judged by the claimant’s convictions. Unlike routine activity and lifestyle theory, the victim’s actions as a result of the criminal injury does not apply, more so that the moral worth of the individual is a deciding factor of if they are deserving of public money (Miers 2007 as cited by Newburn 2017).

Victim rights, regarding the status of victims was first formally addressed in the form of the Victim’s Charter in 1990 (Ministry Of Justice, 2012). The second Victims Charter, had a serious impact on the status of victims, covering the police responsibilities regarding providing information, and complaint procedures if victims felt that standards were not met (Ministry Of Justice, 2012). Furthermore, in 2002, the Home Office published a paper titled justice for all with the sole aim of ‘rebalancing’ the criminal justice system in favour of victims, witness’s and communities (Ministry Of Justice, 2002). The research conducted by early feminist theorists has had a large influence in informing policy agenda in relation to understanding victimization. As cited by Walklate (2006), the success of this influence is demonstrated by the changes within legislature, regarding the introduction of Sexual Offenses Act 2003, and the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. While this is a testament to those who have fought for feminism, the relationship between feminist ideas and Victimology isn’t without its own issues. The most well-known of these being tied with the previously mentioned ‘Ideal Victim’, specifically the labelling of women as either a victim, or a survivor, and how that label had wider connotations with an individual appearing weak, a theme common in positivist victimology.

The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 allowed for the publication of a Code of Practice for Victims of Crime. The latest iteration of this code sets out many entitlements for victims, including information on what to expect from the criminal justice system, a formal confirmation of reporting a crime, referral to organisations that support victims of crime and more. This code also includes the ability to create a Victim Personal Statement allowing for the opportunity to explain how the crime has affected them, making it possible to adjust procedures in relation to feedback and experiences. While these changes within the criminal justice system propose a positive change towards the status of victims, it’s described by Dignan (2005, as cited by Newburn, 2017, p.392) as “partial enfranchisement at best”, with the influence of Christie’s previously mentioned ideal victim still being prevalent in some policy initiatives. Dignan (2005 as cited by Newburn, 2017, p.392) goes on to further state that criminal justice has failed victims, as it doesn’t associate victims as those who suffered harm as the result of a crime. To conclude, whilst there are still shortcomings regarding how the justice system handles victimization; it’s vastly more supportive and accommodative compared to half a century ago. The theorists mentioned in this essay, both positivist and feminist, have had a large impact on the status of victims, and the support available today would not have been possible without their influence. The balance between victim entitlement and an adversarial system must be kept as equal and as fair as possible, and with the introduction of papers such as Victims Strategy, the status of victims should only improve more and more (GOV.UK, 2018).

Recent reports from Huffpost depict that one in four women will experience severe domestic violence in their lifetimes (Vagianos, 2017). Increasing our resources for victims of crimes and abuse can help make the community an overall better place. Victim resources should be not only expanded but also more accessible to everyone, expanding these resources will make victims feel safer and it will help reduce the amount of unreported crimes, as well as avoiding victim blaming. This will encourage the decrease in crime rates, help us build more trust between citizens and law enforcement, and increase the overall safety in our community.

Many crimes go unreported due to the fact that victims are afraid their reports could be ignored or leveled down, this idea is often derived from them thinking the crime being committed is their fault. Many people who are not in abusive relationships find it hard to understand why victims can’t just leave their abuser, when in reality leaving could result in a very dangerous situation(THEHOTLINE). This problem can not only be avoided by creating assistance programs, but also creating online help for victims who are stuck in situations in which they cannot escape or reach out for help. Often there are times in which someone close or important to us may be going through a situation like this. Domestic violence, emotional or physical abuse and neglect are some examples in which a victim could be in a potentially life threatening situation, therefore it is extremely important to reach out to them, with more charity and government funding we can build more safe houses and rehabilitation centers for victims of crime and abuse. Domestic violence has many different forms such as verbal, physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, or financial(DENVERGOV). A leading cause of the ignorance of such cases is caused by the lack of knowledge we are taught about domestic abuse and violence, rarely do we ever hear people talking about unhealthy relationships and their effects and warning signs. Certain individuals get to experience this behavior from parents or family first hand, in this case, the cycle of violence could possibly repeat itself, as it passes on from one generation to the next. A child who has an abusive parent may never know the difference of what’s right and what’s wrong since their parent wasn’t there to set a proper example. The schooling system is regretting to inform students about what a healthy and happy functioning family dynamic should look like, and whether or not they are a potential victim or have one nearby. Teachers and educational counselors should provide more information and discussion on this topic in hopes to give students more knowledge on such matters, it is only acknowledgement and care that can prevent and minimize such dangerous situations.

In this day and age, crime is nearly inevitable and in most cases there is one or more victim involved, this makes it extremely important to educate people about crimes and abuse and give victims an outlet to receive the help they need to recover. Recovery is a long process and support systems are necessary. Creating resources such as affordable rehabilitation, education about crime, and financial help will better our community and make people feel safer, this can not only help victims but it can also help those who have been incarcerated and are left with little to nothing. When a victim has a solid support system, there is a higher sense of trust between them and the law enforcement they are working with. Obviously we have current resources, however many of them are expensive or non accessible for lots of people. One thing we can do is create a program in which those who were incarcerated for long periods of time can be reeducated about society and how it has changed while they were in prison, due to the number of incarcerated individuals, the United States loses an average of $60 billion per year from loss of labor, this can be greatly reduced by educating criminals so they do not return back to prison after they are released. (Bender, 2018). We also need to create more safe houses and financial help for victims of abuse, these simple changes can make a huge difference in how we live our lives.

I chose this topic because my best friend’s boyfriend has been struggling with drug abuse for about 8 years, he has been to prison and rehab but as you all know these are not always effective. At this point, rehab is too expensive for him so they only thing he has left that will keep him clean is being put back into prison. On top of this, his problem has caused him to be angry and abusive to his girlfriend, in this case it’s emotional abuse so there’s no physical evidence. This abuse has hurt our 10 year long friendship and she no longer talks to her family. You might be wondering, why doesn’t she just leave? She feels like if she leaves, his drug problem will become her fault. This is the reason why we need more resources, such as affordable counseling or discrete therapy so she can get the help she needs without his knowledge.

Victim Resources are a key component to the criminal justice system, not only will these sources help those who are being hurt, but they will also reduce the amount of crime in the future. Affordable counseling and therapy, rehab, and better education are just a few ways we can make our community a safer place for everyone. I strongly believe that bettering these resources could help reduce crime and strengthen our relationship with the law.

In Canada, as stated by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.” These rights are considered to be universal and inalienable, but when examining the rates of violence that have been allowed to be perpetrated so disproportionally against certain groups of people in Canada, it seems that society treats some citizens as more worthy than others of having their right to safety protected. As the numbers of Indigenous women in Canada that are considered missing or murdered continues to steadily climb, it seems as if they are a demographic that Canadian law cares little about; however, there is a particular case that I believe highlights one of the most deadly yet least remarkable intersections of societal location: the series of indescribably violent murders of predominantly Indigenous women working in the sex trade in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside in the mid 1980s to the early 2000s committed by Robert Pickton. In this case, the intersectionality of the victims as women, and particularly as sex workers and Indigenous peoples, made them unsurprising targets and the “wrong kind of victims” to garner real urgency in the search for justice, which allowed further violence to be perpetrated against them. Simply put, the fact that they were Indigenous women engaging in prostitution meant that nobody cared whether they faced harm, and in fact assumed that they would due to the normalized narrative of violence against women, sex workers and Indigenous peoples in Canada.

Vancouver’s Downtown East Side, often nicknamed “Canada’s Poorest Postal Code” is an area on the waterfront of Vancouver’s metropolitan downtown, the borders of which are generally thought to span the 10 blocks adjacent to Oppenheimer Park, the home of Vancouver’s most prominent “tent city.” Despite the networks of resources that have come to focus on this neighbourhood, it is widely known to be an area in the city where homelessness, prostitution, and drug use, particularly opioids, is rampant. From 1983 to 2002, 65 women in the Downtown Eastside went missing, some of whom were immediately reported, some of whom went unnoticed for years, and all of whom were women involved in the sex trade. Many of these women were Indigenous. Police response was generally thought to be remarkably slow, with the Vancouver Police Department refusing to connect the disappearances to a serial killer until 1999, and no arrests made until 2002. The man ultimately arrested, Robert Pickton, was a pig farmer in the neighbouring Coquitlam. He was known to the police for the attempted murder and sexual assault of an Indigenous sex worker, and several witnesses had suggested his involvement to the police throughout the investigation, only to be dismissed by officers as not credible due to homelessness and drug involvement. 49 of the murders have been attributed to Pickton, but he was charged with 25 and convicted of 6. All of his victims were female sex workers, and it is thought that roughly 17 of them were Indigenous women. Pickton was found guilty of 6 counts of Second Degree murder the deaths of Sereena Abotsway, Marnie Frey, Andrea Joesbury, Georgina Papin, Mona Wilson and Brenda Wolfe.

In the scope of the argument presented by Kristen Gilchrist (2010), there are several qualifiers which determine the amount of media coverage the victim of a crime will receive; these include the shock factor or remarkability of the case, and the aspects of the victims life that allows them to be painted sympathetically in news coverage; essentially, this determines if they are the “right kind of victim”. Gilchrist proposed that a violent crimes garner more media attention, alluding to the often-quoted phrase, “if it bleeds it leads,” and suggested that normative connotations of femininity and purity allow for female victims to be painted in an innocent or sympathetic light, especially if they are white, middle-class, and can be interpreted as leading “respectable” lives deserving to be avenged. Examining the statistics of violent crimes against women in Canada, I would argue that women categorically embody this Right Type of Victim due to the nature of gender stereotypes and patriarchal violence. Women are already victimized by a patriarchal society, and violence against them is overwhelmingly painted as taboo and tragic rather than preventable. The fact that Pickton’s victims were women meant that they fell into the stereotyped category of the innocent and helpless woman tragically victimized by a man representing the violent and sinister. As described by Gilchrist, “the presumption in the news media is that male offenders are guilty only to the extent that their female victims are innocent.”. This perpetuates the idea of the Right Kind of Victim; the death that society is allowed to mourn is that of an innocent life taken needlessly. Too often do we see this relationship play itself out; in Canada, women are eleven times more likely to be sexually victimized by men and account for a quarter of all hate crimes in the country. Even though violence against women, particularly that which is sexual in nature, is so insidiously incorporated in our collective unconsciousness, the perceived vulnerability of the female gender means that news outlets have the perfect opportunity to equate femininity to victimhood. The paradox of these crimes against women is that while they are more frequent and more violent in nature, the gendered incitement of the violence they face is precisely what makes them most grievable to the world after their death. The media transforms them from just being women to being mothers, daughters, sisters, icons, and emblems of the tragically fleeting nature of life as a symptom of womanhood. All 49 of the murders attributed to Pickton were enacted against female victims, and the rarity of a serial killer undoubtedly would be considered unusual enough to entertain in media; so, why was it that so little attention was paid to the gross loss of human life in the Downtown Eastside? What made these women the Wrong Type of Victim in the eyes of the media and law enforcement? My argument is that some people are seen more deserving of violence than others, and some more deserving of public outrage; it is the intersection between societal location, prostitution, and Indigeneity that permitted many of Pickton’s victims to be ignored by Canadian society.

Much like violence against women, violence against individuals engaging in sex work, survival sex, prostitution, and other forms of erotic labour is nothing shy of overwhelming. It just so happened that Pickton’s victims all landed in the intersection of these two categories, leaving them doubly exposed to violent crimes. As of 2014, 57% of homicides against sex workers have been determined to be directly linked to their engagement in sex-based services, and 96% of sex workers killed are women, many of whom were Indigenous women, falling under an intersection that is described as “overrepresented”. These murders statistically have less likelihood of being solved than those involving women in less “high-risk” professions, and much like in the case of Robert Pickton, many sex workers who are murdered were killed by an individual who had killed 2 or more sex workers in the past, or otherwise demonstrated violence against these women categorically. Given this data on the prolific violence against women in sex work, and the fast appearing trends presenting themselves in the Downtown Eastside from 1983-2002, the slow response of the police should be surprising; yet, progress on connecting the 65 disappearances and taking measures to prevent further harm crawled. The fact that all of the women killed by Pickton were sex workers meant that they were no longer considered newsworthy for being ground-breaking and rare, as rape and violent crimes against sex workers is seen by many as simply an inevitability and a hazard of a trade they should have avoided if they wished to prevent themselves from being raped or killed. Women engaging in sex work are no longer seen as the Right Kind of Victim, or even the right kind of woman. I think the sentiment is exemplified well by sex-work advocate Melissa Grant: “we permit some violence against women to be committed in order to protect the social and sexual value of other women.”. At the time, in Vancouver, the general sentiment was that these women were seen not as human at all, but as “hookers,” a species separate from the women known and loved by the general public, and solely responsible for the consequences of her own recklessness. The fact that Pickton’s victims were engaged in sex work meant that Vancouver law enforcement and Canadian media society saw them as people who would not be missed because they were unworthy of being deemed human enough to be newsworthy. The value placed on their lives was weighed against the stories that the public can feel sympathy for- women with “respectable” jobs, who would not be so foolish as to engage in survival work. Gilchrist argued that “in order for there to be a ‘bad,’ ‘unworthy,’ ‘impure,’ ‘disreputable’ woman/victim there must simultaneously be a ‘good,’ ‘worthy,’ ‘pure,’ and ‘respectable’ woman/victim against whom she is judged.”, illustrating how sex workers are presented inherently as the vice to the “undeserving” woman. Relevant as well is the notion that, “… if [a victim] engages in sex for money, she is likely to be constructed as, at least partially, responsible for violence against her.” Perhaps Pickton deliberately chose sex workers as his victims because he knew, on some level, that they weren’t the Right Kind of Victim to garner media attention. Perhaps the Vancouver Police Department and the Coquitlam RCMP felt that their “high-risk lifestyle” made them a lower priority on the hierarchy of human lives lost. In absence of speculation on the misogynistic motivations behind the crime and response, it is abundantly clear that sex workers face disproportionate levels of homicide and sexual violence, and that the painstakingly slow response by Vancouver authorities is representative of the broader notions in Canadian society of whose lives are valuable and who is right kind of person to be deserving of justice.

In the context of the Pickon murders, it is impossible to examine the response by media and authorities without also taking into account the indigeneity of many of his victims. As I argued in the previous paragraphs, whilst their womanhood simultaneously made them sympathetic but unremarkable victims, their engagement in sex work meant that the loss of their lives was seen as self-inflicted occupational consequence; however, as if these women were not already being dismissed as the Wrong Kind of Victim, the fact that many of them were Indigenous further reinforced the sentiment that their lives were utterly disposable and undeserving of mourning. In the broader historical context, violence and genocide against Indigenous peoples in Canada has been seamlessly woven into our subjective and romantic understanding of colonialism- Indigenous lives were simply a barrier to resources, their death a necessary measure in domination. This sentiment continues to be perpetuated in Canadian society, as demonstrated by the utter lack of interest in the loss of Indigenous lives in the Downtown Eastside during Pickton’s killing spree. It is so normative to see Indigenous peoples in Canada through the lens of violence and victimhood that a narrative of perpetual victimhood has become what Chimamana Adichie described as Canada’s “single story” (2009) of indigeneity- what they are homogenized and essentialized to be seen singularly as. Statistically speaking, Indigenous women have double the likelihood of facing violence than white women in Canada, and that fact must not be ignored in the inspection of the deaths of Pickton’s victims. I would argue that the normalization of the narrative of colonial violence contributed to why these women were seen as the Wrong Kind of Victim, as violence against them has been scripted to be thoroughly unsurprising and therefore not newsworthy. As Gilchrist so powerfully explained in her work: “Aboriginal women’s degraded place in Canadian society has marked them as “inherently rapeable.”. Pickton’s victims were seen as more deserving of violence and less deserving of justice due to these pervasive sentiments in Canadian society. Essentially, “missing/murdered Aboriginal women are seen by the media ‘less as victims deserving rescue than as bodies that simply do not matter.’”. This effect was magnified again by the women’s engagement in sex work, making them, in the eyes of the media and police, entirely responsible for their own deaths by nature of their very existence, and unworthy of public outcry.

In her work “Newsworthy Victims?…” (2010), Kristen Gilchrist hypothesized that there is a “right kind of victim” to garner media attention in the events of violent crimes- this victim is respectable, white, upper-middle-class, and the violence against her is remarkable by the nature of its dramatic rarity. When Robert Pickton murdered 49 women in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver from 1983-2002, there were 3 characteristics that influenced the amount of media and public attention their deaths received: first, they were all women. This meant that while high rates of violence against women made their cases unremarkable, this trait allowed them the opportunity to be painted sympathetically due to essentialized notions of victimhood and femininity. Second, they were all sex workers- this meant that they no longer had notions of purity and respectability to garner dismay at their deaths, which also show a statistically higher occurrence. Finally, many of them were Indigenous women, which meant that normative colonial narratives of violence and death led to public desensitization and apathy surrounding their murders. Examining these factors separately, one can see that there were many ways in which their deaths would be considered societally as tragic but not unexpected; however, it was the intersectionality between the categories of womanhood, prostitution, and indigeneity that made these women entirely the Wrong Kind of Victim to inspire swift justice, media equality, and urgency. The lack of efficient response by Canadian media and Vancouver police illustrates the sentiment that these women has tarnished their own eulogy with their intersectionality. One may wonder if Pickton chose his victims specifically to commit violence against women, to exploit sex workers, or out of hatred of Indigenous peoples, but I would argue that it was the overlap of these three issues that made them convenient victims less likely to be missed or mourned by society than the Right Kind of Victim. In the case of public attention, Gilchrist noted that in regards to the sentiment that violent crimes create the Right Kind of Victims, “‘it really depends on who is bleeding”.