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

June 1, 2025 in PRINT EDITION

Under the Umbrella of Water Law: Why Rainwater Harvesting Should Constitute a Valid Water Right Authors

Abstract: Rain is a major source of water. It provides for our greatest needs, such as feeding our gardens, crops, rivers, and lakes. As global climate change continues to unfold,…
Read More
June 1, 2025 in PRINT EDITION

Why Medicaid Is Addressing Homelessness with Section 1115 Waivers: A Critical Examination of the United States’ Federalist Mental Health System

Abstract: Housing and health care are deeply interconnected, and their systemic relationship profoundly affects individual and societal well-being. Inadequate funding has undermined the American mental health system for decades, leading…
Read More
June 1, 2025 in PRINT EDITION

A Right to Repress: IPEC v Inslee and the Parental Right to Determine the Gender of a Child

Abstract: Do parents have a constitutional right to determine their child’s gender? No court has held that they do, but that assumption was the basis of a challenge brought in…
Read More