We live in a world where the justice system requires an individual or organisation take responsibility for their culpable acts of wrongdoing. Whether it is a crime punishable by imposition of a penalty or a term of imprisonment, or an act of negligence which causes someone to suffer a physical or financial loss, in a perfect world someone must be held liable. But let's suppose for a moment, that the victim of such an act is not a good person. What if that person was an evil person? Or a person who, say, has questionable morals? From a theoretical point of view (not legal), does it make the crime/negligent act any less heinous or serious? Does it make their suffering negligible or somehow less worthy of sympathy because they don't fit the model of what a victim should look like? Spiritualists might argue that it's all a question of karma. The notion that you 'get what you deserve' or 'you reap what you sow' - to use the old cliches. The civil libertarians and lawyers amongst us might argue the victim's own actions and character are irrelevant - so long as that person did not contribute to the cause of the incident - that they are blameless or innocent. Wherever your own view of the matter falls, it's an interesting notion, isn't it? That the victim's character makes them inherently more or less sympathetic from an objective point of view. . .BM Carroll's "The Missing Pieces of Sophie McCarthy" explores this paradigm in a gripping, yet thought-provoking manner when strangers Sophie McCarthy and Aidan Ryan, are brought together in a tragic incident. Sophie is the victim and Ryan is the perpetrator. But Ber Carroll's exploration of betrayal and revenge in this novel will have you questioning whether Sophie really is the innocent victim in the tragic and devastating chain of events depicted. . .A compelling page-turner that will have you reading late into the night! Hope you enjoy it as much as I did!