The cynicism of the media and public opinion is reflected in this observation: on the scale of public emotion, 100,000 deaths in a conflict in a faraway continent is equivalent to 1,000 deaths in a close country which is equivalent to 10 deaths in the city centre of a Western capital which is equivalent to the death of a beloved celebrity. There are victims who arouse extreme compassion (victims of random terrorist acts, child victims of a monster, victims of sexual abuse committed by a cleric, fragile elderly victims of a racist act, victims of police violence or abuse of a State authority, heroic victims...). In criminology, this is referred to as the "ideal victim" (Nils Christie, 1986). But there are also victims who disturb, who exacerbate a divide (such as the aftermath of the Weinstein affair, where the #Metoo were confronted with an antifeminist discourse claiming sexual freedom). Finally, there are victims who arouse indifference or even denial or contempt (victims in remote areas trapped in an unreadable conflict abroad, victims found "guilty"...).The renowned Nils Christie’s definition of the ideal victim should be rephrased and refined. A somewhat different presentation can be proposed. The figure of the ideal victim crystallizes in the presence of five elements. It is necessary that the victim be weak (Part I), that there be real or symbolic identification with the victim (Part II), that there should be no victim blaming or divide in the opinion (Part III), that the criminal be "big and bad" (Part IV) and that the victim be seen or heard (Part V). A victim is all the more likely to gain the ideal victim status if the personality of the perpetrator is rejected:this phenomenon may be called the contrast effect