What kind of person would try to remain detached and dispassionate in the midst of such intense suffering?

Why would anyone even con- sider striving for objectivity to be an indispensable prerequisite of each and every scientific analysis?

WHY OBJECTIVITY IS DESIRABLE

At first glance, the importance of reserving judg- ments, refraining from jumping to conclusions, and resisting the urge to side with those who are in pain might not be self-evident. An angry, gut reaction might be to ask, “What kind of person would try to remain detached and dispassionate in the midst of such intense suffering? What is wrong with championing the interests of people whose

lives have been upended by unjust and illegal actions? Why is neutrality a worthwhile starting point in any analysis?”

The simple and direct answer to the question “Why shouldn’t victimologists be openly, unabash- edly, and consistently pro-victim?” is that, unlike the situations described in the examples above, on many occasions this formula offers no real guidance. So when is a person worthy of sympathy and support? Most people would consider an individual to be an innocent victim only when the following conditions apply (what sociologists would call the ideal type or positive stereotype): The person who suffered harm was weaker in comparison to the apparent aggressor and was acting virtuously (or at least was engaged in conventional activities and was not looking for trou- ble or breaking any laws), the wrongdoer was a com- plete stranger whose predatory behavior obviously was illegal and unprovoked, and the one who resorted to force was not a member of a governmen- tal agency authorized to use coercion (such as police officers or prison guards). Using the language of soci- ology, the status of being a legitimate or bona fide victim worthy of support is socially constructed and conferred (see Christie, 1986; and Dignan, 2005).