@Darkwolfix:
I mean, it's fiction and all so it's not like it matters, but that there my friend is pretty-much victim-blaming in a nutshell.
Yes, they could have done some things to reduce their exposure to these particular risks, in theory. That neither makes murdering them excusable, nor makes their deaths "their own fault". No assumption-of-risk doctrine should ever apply to shift responsibility for harm in the context of
intentionally harmful acts from a second or third party. Saying they
should have done X or Y to not end up in a shitty situation implies the burden of responsibility (in this case, of not getting murdered) is on them.
(It's fine to say, "it would have been wise for them to not take those jobs". That's not victim-blaming, until you imply that somehow it's an ameliorating factor in the wrongness of the harm done to them.)
Again this is fiction and whatnot and who cares and all that, it just seemed like you were falling into, well, one of humanity's most popular reasoning pitfalls, which is pretty harmful in
other contexts, so I wanted to point that out.
I could go into reasons why even self-respecting, independent-minded innocent folks would still end up there—e.g. if the jobs there are so terrible and drive people away they could just have high turnover, and so there'd still always then be some innocent people there at any given time—but my point is that all that's irrelevant; again, that regardless of how wise one's actions are, no innocent person (as in, one who has not first wronged others) is responsible for someone else doing bad things to them.