Skip to main content
PRINT EDITION

Victims as Instruments

Abstract: Crime victims are often instrumentalized within the criminal legal process in furtherance of state prosecutorial interests. This is a particularly salient issue concerning victims of gender-based violence (GBV) because victim testimony is typically considered essential for successful prosecution of these types of crimes. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington, courts require declarants to be available for cross-examination on “testimonial” hearsay evidence. Consequently, criminal legal actors are further incentivized to employ highly coercive practices aimed at securing GBV victims’ participation in the criminal legal process as evidentiary tools. These practices include arresting and incarcerating victims through material witness warrants and contempt power, criminally charging and threatening charges against them, and conditioning key assistance measures upon their full cooperation with law enforcement. This Article critically examines paternalistic and utilitarian justifications for these practices and exposes their misalignment with the core principles of paternalism and utilitarianism. It then examines the state’s approach to GBV victims under three interrelated conceptual frameworks which have thus far been overlooked in this context: deontological ethics, dehumanization constructs, and liberal legal principles. This novel critique argues that the practices at issue are incompatible with foundational principles concerning the dignified treatment of individuals within the liberal legal order. It also contends that the targeted use of these coercive mechanisms operates as punishment for victims who fail to conform to “ideal” and legitimate GBV victim stereotypes, which require full cooperation with criminal legal authorities. Following this analysis, the Article proposes a normative shift in the approach, from one that conceptualizes GBV victims primarily as instruments to one that constructs them as agents whose dignity and autonomy the state must respect.

Download the Full Article

Other Articles from WLR Print Edition

January 1, 2026 in PRINT EDITION

From the Bench to the Feed: Conflict Between Public Official Accounts and the First Amendment

Abstract: Imagine one day waking up, opening Facebook, and discovering that the official White House account blocked you because you left a comment expressing a viewpoint. In this case, your…
Read More
January 1, 2026 in PRINT EDITION

The Reasonability Rule for Medical Damages in Tort: In Defense of Chargemaster Recovery

Abstract: In a personal injury suit, Washington law requires the plaintiff to prove that their medical costs are reasonable to recover damages for those costs. Tort reform proponents attempt to…
Read More
January 1, 2026 in PRINT EDITION

Who Counts as a “Reasonable Employee”? The Third Circuit’s Bungling of Section 8(a)(1) Violations

Abstract: The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects private employees’ right to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers. Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees the right to self-organize…
Read More