VICTIM INTERACTION MODEL

Dr. David Canter when conducting offender profiling uses what is referred to as the bottom-up approach e.g., this approach starts with specific details from the crime scene and uses data-driven, statistical, and empirical methods to build a profile of the offender rather than relying on pre-existing profiles and typologies; predictions about the offender’s characteristics (profile) are made based on the evidence rather than relying on predefined categories/profiles (which characterize the FBI’s approach).

However, this approach also has its downfalls/limitations. Whilst it takes a scientific approach, it is time-consuming and somewhat complex, and requires access to a large amount of data, which isn’t often available regarding sexual violence due to under-reporting etc. However, the results of this approach to categorizing offenders and how they interact with those they target are somewhat more reliable in the results that are produced.

Canter’s typologies of rapists echo many of the “themes” that are contained in both Groth’s and the FBI’s typologies but presents them in a different way, using a more science-based methodology (a study/analysis of 112 stranger-rapes).

He also introduces the idea that the way an offender views and interacts with the individual they target/victimize is an important factor in classifying and categorizing them.

Whilst acknowledging the different motives that rapists and sexual assailants may have, the way they view those towards whom they direct sexual violence is also important. His findings suggest that stranger-rapes may be more about hostility and pseudo-intimacy than about power and control etc.

His model/typology recognizes three types of rapists based on how they view those they victimize. These are:

1. The victim as a Person
2. The victim as an Object
3. The victim as a Vehicle

His previous model of rape was based on the concept that rape is essentially a crime of violation where an individual may be violated personally, physically and/or sexually etc., and a key to understanding sexual violence is recognizing how the assailant views/sees and interacts with their victim.

When as assailant sees the victim as a person they try to establish a pseudo-relationship with them, much in the same way as a power-reassurance rapist e.g., they talk to the victim asking them questions, maybe complementing them and implying that they’ve previously known each other (it’s possible that they may have conducted some form of surveillance on their victim and know certain facts/things about them that they can use to infer this) etc.

They may also coerce/force the victim into making sexual comments/“talking dirty” to imply that they are consenting and “enjoying” the assault.

It can be difficult to think of someone using a sexual assault to gain intimacy with another person however for some sexual assailants there is a “confusion” about intimacy, power/control and consent. This “confusion” doesn’t justify their actions or make them any less of a rapist, than the sexual offender who is motivated by anger etc.

When the assailant sees the victim as an object, they act and display no concerns for the victim’s feelings or physical safety. Such things, unlike the rapist who sees their victim as a person, are of no importance to them.

In this regard the rapist is very much like Groth’s Anger-Rapists who just need a target to unleash their rage upon.

Such sexual predators may rip the victim’s clothing, gag, blindfold and bind them (similar actions/behaviors that many sadistic rapists, such as Fred and Rosemary West engaged in), and possibly steal from them, either to take “trophies” and/or take advantage of them financially etc.

There may also be an opportunistic component in certain assaults i.e., where an assailant during a burglary finds a person to victimize and does so because they can. This is where Canter’s work/typologies offer a cross-over between that of Groth and Hazelwood/Burgess in that the victim as an object, contains elements of their anger rapist definitions as well as those of sadistic/anger-excitation rapists.

The victim as a vehicle is essentially a surrogate for the rapist to vent their anger and frustration upon. The cause of this anger may be many things. It could result from a sense of powerlessness in a prior or current relationship and/or a feeling of inadequacy in another environment/setting, such as at work or in a social setting, where a member of a social group is mocked or made fun off etc.

Canter also suggests that there are certain behavioral traits/themes that are exhibited and accompany both the personal, physical and sexual violations of rape/sexual assault. He defines these as:

1. Involvement
2. Hostility
3. Control, and
4. Theft

The way these “interact” can be seen in the table below:

Variations of Violation	Personal Violation	Physical Violation	Sexual Violation
Hostility	Forces Victim Sexual Comment	Demeans Victim Multiple Violence Single Violence Tears Clothing Verbal Violence	Anal Penetration Fellatio Forces Victim Participation
Control	Implies Knowing Victim	Binds Victim Blindfolds Victim Wears Disguise Gags Victim Threatens Victim Not To Report
Theft	Steals Identifiable Items Steals Personal Items Steals Unidentifiable Items	Demands Goods
Involvement	Compliments Victim Implies Knowing Victim	Identifies Victim	Cunnilingus Kisses Victim Offender Sexual Comment

It isn’t important to fully understand/make sense of the table above but to understand the idea that there are certain ways in which sexual predators view those they victimize i.e., as persons, objects or vehicles, and this results in certain types of violation, such as physical and sexual violations, which may be motivated by themes of involvement and/or hostility etc.

It is important to note that Dr. Canter works primarily in the field of investigative psychology, which aims to assist law-enforcement in identifying the perpetrators of crime. To this end his work/research focuses on how to identify from a crime scene the character and personalities of those who engage in sexual violence. This is where his work and that of the FBI’s differ from Groth who was looking at how to treat offenders in a forensic setting.

When we understand the various contexts and purposes for which different research is conducted, we can see that often what may at first appear to be contradictory works actually complement each other. They are simply taking different perspectives on a subject.

Hazelwood and Burgess took Groth’s idea/typology of “Power” and saw it as something that was more nuanced i.e., individuals seek power for different reasons; to assert it, or as a tool to seek reassurance etc.

Dr. Canter’s work recognized the role of anger in rape and saw that this was sometimes released on a surrogate (victim as a vehicle), or on a person viewed as an object, and that sadistic rapists also viewed those they victimized as objects etc. So, whilst at first glance it may seem that there is disagreement on the aspects and motivations of rape, when we put them all together, we can see that much of the research actually agrees and confirms itself.

In the next section we will look at how sexual sadism (anger-excitement) can play a part in rape and sexual assaults.