‘Why Don’t You Block Them?’ Police Officers’ Constructions of the Ideal Victim When Responding to Reports of Interpersonal Cybercrime

Abstract

This chapter explores police officers' responses to reports of interpersonal cybercrime by considering their construction of the 'ideal victim'. It contributes to knowledge on police officers' perceptions of cybercrime and their support for victims. The discussion draws on Nils Christie's (1986) concept of the 'ideal victim' to explore which individuals police officers most readily give the legitimate status of victim. Three themes are discussed including: police officers' constructions of the 'ideal victim'; their attitudes towards victims in relation to prevention of cybercrime (i.e. 'block them') and; negotiations over responsibility for dealing with the emerging issue of cybercrime. The chapter argues that police forces must advance beyond an approach which entails victim-blaming and instead recognise the centrality of social media and online spaces in individuals' lives.

Responding to cybercrime: results of a comparison between community members and police personnel

“…Police were less likely to blame victims of image-based sexual abuse for their victimisation where they had voluntarily sent intimate images to the offending party. This pattern is interesting, because both police and community members have been independently observed to ascribe moral responsibility for cybercrime according to criteria of 'ideal' victimisation (eg Black, Lumsden & Hadlington 2019;Holt & Bossler 2016).…”

“…Police tend to prioritise their work according to judgements about the severity of different cybercrimes, using the heuristics of 'ideal victimisation'-where the perceived responsibility for criminal behaviour is determined by the comparative blamelessness and weakness of a victim (Christie 1986: 19;Cross 2018a). For example, observational research of police control rooms in the UK suggests that the perceived 'blamelessness' of cyber-harassment victims influences decisions about whether further investigation is warranted (Black, Lumsden & Hadlington 2019). Similarly, UK police report frustrations with 'unhelpful victims' of cybercrime who fail to follow advice about preventing victimisation, such as blocking an offender or avoiding social media (Millman, Winder & Griffiths 2017: 93).…”

Sexual Violence in the Digital Age: Replicating and Augmenting Harm, Victimhood and Blame

“…For instance, in 2016, Sussex police were heavily criticised for failing to charge a man who had distributed sexual images of five different women, including a 15-year-old (Laville, 2016). Indeed, a study conducted with two police forces in England suggested that notions of ‘ideal victimhood’ influence this normalisation process within police forces, with interpersonal offences such as domestic abuse and ‘revenge pornography’ denoted as ‘lower level forms of offending’ than property-related anonymous cybercrimes (Black et al, 2019: 374). Evidence also emerged of victim blame and responsibilisation, themes explored in greater detail below.…”

Police preparedness to respond to cybercrime in Australia: An analysis of individual and organizational capabilities

“…This is not an isolated issue. Research suggests the comparative "blamelessness" of victims is important for understanding officer willingness to respond to cybercrime, as victims who have taken steps to protect themselves are perceived as more deserving of assistance (Black et al, 2019;Broll & Huey, 2015, p. 167;Hinduja & Schafer, 2009). For example, Millman et al (2017, p. 93) observe that British police report frustration with "unhelpful victims" of cyber-harassment who continue to use social media.…”