To what extent is Victor's creation a victim of a society that has abandoned and rejected him? Is his violence and vengeance justifiable?

The creature in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has been thrust into a world he does not understand, a world that rejects him over and over, leaving him isolated and miserable. In rage and profound unhappiness, he commits despicable acts of violence, taking innocent lives in retaliation for his suffering. Despite the unforgivable nature of his crimes, readers persist in asking whether or not he is really at fault; the mere fact that it is possible he could be justified in his actions is just one of many factors that makes this novel so remarkable.
The answers to these questions are really up to each and every reader of Frankenstein. Ample evidence for both perspectives are observable in the novel, so both sides of the argument are viable. To see the creature as a victim suggests that the creature has little control over his situation, which works for believers in fate and destiny; free-will proponents may be more likely to see the creature as a perpetrator who cannot be excused for his actions.