The Yorkshire Ripper Case

Sex workers as victims, victimology and victim-blaming

The Yorkshire Ripper case has been a high-profile case during the 1970’s when Peter Sutcliffe has
viciously killed 13 women and attempted to kill seven others that managed to escape. The ripper
developed an obsession with prostitutes, and he began observing them conduct their business on the
streets of Leeds consistently (Groover & Soothill, 1999). He started the killing spree in 1975 and getting
arrested only in 1980 for drunk driving and while awaiting his trial, he killed another two women and
attacked three others. He was ultimately arrested in 1981 and given twenty concurrent life sentences. The
motive behind his murders is still unclear, although he claimed that the voice of God has commanded him
to kill them in an attempt to clean the streets, claiming that he is suffering of paranoid- schizophrenia
(Caputi, 1987).

The Yorkshire Ripper’s victims.

For decades, Peter Sutcliffe’s victims were known to be either’ good time girls’ or prostitutes, but later
investigations discovered that some of the victims were not sex-workers (Yallop, 1983). This led to a rupture
between the prostitute and the blameless victim that was not involved in such immoral behaviour. Although
the nature of the crimes has terrified the public, the perception that some victims were less blameless than the
others was not prevented. During the trial, prosecutor Sir Michael Havers, controversially claimed that while
some of the victims were prostitutes, ‘perhaps the saddest part of this case is that some were not’ (Bindel,
2006).

The tendency to blame crime victims for the offences they suffered, or victim-blaming has long
existed in our society (Finkel, 2001). This phenomenon was explained by the ‘just world’ hypothesis applied
by criminologists (Grubb & Harrower, 2008). This hypothesis has its central focus on the public tendency to
hold victims accountable for the offences they suffered due to immoral behaviour or perceived character
flaws. This serves as a mean to alleviate feelings of fear or guilt for not providing victim services or eliminate
adverse social conditions for the prevention of future victimisation (Freeman, 2006). The victim-blaming or
victim-precipitation theories, in their initial form, acknowledge that in some crimes, there is a certain
relationship between the perpetrator and its victim and it is implying that if there was not for the victim’s own
culpability, no crime would have been committed in the first place (Rock, 2007).

Despite feminist criticism, for decades, women were blamed for domestic violence and rape. Feminist
approaches claimed that this reasoning served as a means of discreditation of victims of rape or sexual
assault, and even murder (women) on the grounds that they were dressed to provoke and through their
behaviour, they brought the victimisation they suffered. Under some circumstances, this idea came very close
to absolving the offender of responsibility for the offences committed.

Amir (1971) applied this victim-precipitation view in a study of rape victims and his findings have
shown that one fifth of the victims has somehow precipitated its victimisation. As expected, his work has
faced considerable criticism due to the limited views about the nature of victimisation. In particular, Walklate
(1989) argued that this approach has failed to consider the structural circumstances in which victims find
themselves and its focus is mainly on choices and individual events.

The Yorshire Ripper’s case that involved the serial killings of sex workers as a marginalised group
presented an indifference towards the victims in both terms of commitment of the police investigation and
efficacy and, most importantly, the way in which the victims were presented (Jiwani & Young, 2006).
 Furthermore, prostitutes are still at risk to be victims of violence due to a repressive policy formed by
the stigmatisation and repression of sex workers throughout the past two centuries in England and Whales
(Sanders & Cambpell, 2007).

Feminist scholars argued that this was a femicide found within a culture of misogyny that allowed the
male-dominated legal process to deny the victimhood of less respectable women and failed to value the lives
of thirteen women (Radford, 1992). Academic assessments on the Petter Sutcliffe case focused on the
practical and procedural failing of the police (Byford, 1981), however, feminist assessments on the case
highlighted the misogynist views of the victims the way the investigation was shaped by the police culture
(Smith, 1992).

Moreover, Smith (1992) claimed that the machismo and sexism within the Yorkshire ripper’s
community was also shared by the West Yorkshire police whom was male-dominated. This led to misguiding
the investigation and delaying the apprehension of the killer due to the dismission of genuine victims if they
did not fit the prostitute profile of victim.

Historically, in the United Kingdom, prostitutes have been consistently prosecuted and regulated by
the criminal justice systems which lead to an increase of vulnerability and victimisation within their
occupation. Further on, even in the twentieth century, legislation continued to stigmatise and disempower
prostitutes and, generally women.

O’Neil (2010) argued that the police investigation of the Yorkshire Ripper’s case has been influenced
by this socio-historical legal context where the prostitute was viewed as ‘morally deviant other’. Previous to
the Ripper’s murders, the policy frameworks regarding prostitution has been persistent in ‘othering women’
both as criminals and victims.

The extent of victimisation when it comes to women that are soliciting and loitering is quite broad due
to the socio-economic and situational factors that put prostitutes at high risk of serial murder (Quinet, 2011).
The disappearance and murder of sex workers is also lees likely to be investigated, solved or even noticed
and are considered to be the victims of serial murderers as ‘the less dead’ due to their low social status (Egger,
2002).

The attitudes towards prostitution and prostitutes as victims are in accordance with the early positivist
victimology that claims that lifestyle is the central reason for victimisation and it makes the victim culpable
for its own victimisation but failing to consider how victimhood is often caused by unequal power relations
(Amir, 1971; Von Henting, 1948).
 The positivist victimology has been highly criticised in regards of its views on victim-precipitation
and the victim-blaming approaches failing to take in consideration the socio-economic circumstances and the
unequal power relations between the victims and their perpetrators.

Scholars such as Amir and Von Henting attempted to understand the relationship between the victim
and its perpetrators but by doing so, they diminished the role of the victim and influenced the public views on
the victimhood of individuals that fail to comply to the societal norms and what is considered to be socially
acceptable and moral and what is considered to be immoral, subsequently creating a rupture between the
blameless and less blameless victims of crimes.