{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02485207100591716, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007100591715976331, 'mean_word_length': 5.042857142857143, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Good versus bad? Victims, offenders and victim-offenders in Swedish crime policy

In the crime policy field, the crime victim is usually described as the direct opposite of the offender in terms of characteristics and needs. This article analyses crime policy descriptions of crime victims and offenders, with a special focus on how politicians address the issue of the victim–offender overlap. The material comprises a sample of legislative crime policy bills submitted by members of the Swedish parliament during 2005–10. In the bills, crime victims are described as good, innocent and in need of help, whereas the offender is seen as a bad, ruthless scoundrel. In between stands a group of victim-offenders; pitiable poor things. However, when responses to offenders are discussed, both poor things and scoundrels are to be punished severely.