ABSTRACT
Victimization is traditionally associated with passivity, helplessness, powerlessness, and vulnerability, and an “ideal victim” necessitates the identification (and prosecution) of an “ideal offender” (Christie, 1986). Further, in contrast to the “fixed” position of the offender (as immoral), the position of the victim can be flexible, depending on their perceived response to the crime that took place. Kearon and Godfrey (2007) present the demise of the victim as having enjoyed a role as the “essential actor” in early modern criminal justice processes, to the “symbolic actor” of the enlightenment, to their current position of “fragmented actor”—to be helped, protected, pitied, or doubted, and even despised. It has been suggested that the idea of “the victim” has become much stronger as they have come to be represented by others in the courtroom, where the “powerful symbolism of vulnerable victims” (Kearon & Godfrey, 2007) was conceived. This image of the “ideal victim” has significantly shaped public, media, and governmental attitudes toward crime and
Introduction 289 Victims’ Roles 290 “False” Allegations 292 Ideal Victims’ Identities 296 Targeted Police Activity: Exposing the Exploited 298 Redefining the Stereotypical Victim 304
Case Studies 304 Recasting the Roles of Victim and Offender 308 References 310
offenders, reinforcing an increasingly complex, fragmented, and paradoxical debate. The victim’s role generally remains uncomplicated, providing the victim maintains the “appropriate” veneer of victimhood, but the status of the victim is precarious and can be variously shaped and influenced by cultural forces (Mythen, 2007). The media, as well as jurists, have helped fuel the general public’s assessment of the apposite sufferer, as one who has in no way precipitated or contributed to their own victimization-a view that has been promulgated for many years (Kearon & Godfrey, 2007; Weisstub, 1986). The end of the twentieth century saw victim issues begin formally to be addressed by the state and policy makers (Mawby & Gill, 1987) and, through the formalization of measures to address victims’ rights, the victim has been (re-)placed (rhetorically, at least) center stage in formal responses to community safety, crime control, and punishment (Mawby & Gill, 1987). The voice of the victim is sought through crime victimization surveys; our policies are shaped to ensure that victims are protected; and victimization is recognized and targeted by the authorities (such as antihate campaigns, domestic violence awareness drives, or safer cities initiatives). Despite such drives to identify “victimization” generally, there are many challenges for those individuals who seek legal recourse and recognition if they do not match the prototype. The victim of crime at court often remains the “silent and forgotten” actor in the criminal justice system (CJS), which is astonishing, given that most trials would collapse if their cooperation was not forthcoming (Das, 1997).
