Who’s a “Good” Victim of Gender-Based Violence?: Credibility, Worthiness, and Ideal Victimhood in Victim Compensation Law

Abstract

Abstract Scholars have argued that institutions privilege “good” victims of gender-based violence – those deemed sympathetic, morally upstanding, and worthy of public support. We extend existing research by synthesizing theories of good victimhood and theoretically distinguishing victims’ credibility in relation to the crime from their worthiness in relation to the state . Both credibility and worthiness are tied up in expectations of normative femininity. We then show how these processes operate in the case of victim compensation law, the only direct public benefit for crime victims. Our historical analysis reveals how policymakers proposed four restrictions to limit compensation to “good” victims, corresponding with victims’ credibility on the one hand, and worthiness on the other. With respect to credibility, eligible victims needed to present visible, embodied harm and could not have engaged in conduct that may have “contributed” to their victimization. With respect to worthiness, eligible victims were required to sever romantic ties with perpetrators and cooperate with police. By delineating credibility and worthiness as distinct components of good victimhood, we clarify how ideas of good victimhood infused specific eligibility restrictions in victim compensation law, while also equipping scholars with theoretical tools to understand logics of exclusion beyond our case.