Why Do We Blame The Victim?

Children in homes where there is abuse usually end up either, being abused themselves or being neglected. This is where they generally learn to become abusers themselves.

The first victimization theory is victim precipitation. According to Dr. Marvin Wolfgang, some people may initiate confrontation, provoking the offender, which could eventually lead to his or her death or injury. (Siegel 78) During his research, he concludes that victims are not entirely innocent or blameless. Consequently, the victim sets into motion their own victimization using confrontation. These precipitations are performed in one of two ways, active or passive. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

Positivist victimology has made a fundamental contribution to the study of victimology by ensuring the development and refinement of quantitative victimisation. It emphasises the role of the state, criminal justice agencies and the voluntary sector in responding to the needs of victims of crime. It is however

The introduction of Nils Christie’s ‘Ideal victim’ theory (1986: 18) refers to victims of crime who can attain the status of a legitimate victim in the eyes of the public. Christie outlines a criteria which needs to be followed in order to gain this full status of a ‘legitimate victim’. Christie’s ‘ideal victim’ however is not the same as a legal victim and often real victims of crime deviate far from the concept of the ideal victim (Beck & Janbakhsh 2010). This therefore means that using Christie’s ideal victim theory to give someone the title of a legitimate victim is often detrimental. Male victims of sexual assault often deviate from the ‘ideal victim’ criteria set out by Christie, this means that when they encounter the justice system, their experiences are often marginalised or discounted entirely.

In the article, Abuser & Victim…Alike, the author argues that both the abuser and the victim share responsibility for their situations. This is only true if we choose to believe that such people voluntarily stay and allow the abuse to continue. In this sense, some truth might exist, however, we must remember the lack of control felt by each victim, as well as the emotional torment they experience that serves to trap them in their current situations. Alternatively, it would be difficult for the author to validate such a claim of shared responsibility if the abused were a child, disabled or mentally handicapped person. To a certain degree, the author himself contradicts his previous statement when he comments that “abusers have all the power”.

When examining the victim’s actions, the differences between a ‘positivist perspective’ and ‘feminist perspective’ become evident. A ‘positivist perspective’ implies "identifying the factors that contribute to the non-random victimization pattern, focusing on the interpersonal violent crimes, and endeavouring to identify the victims who are prone to contribute to their own victimization" (Kostić, M. 2010 p69). This shows the victim as being the kind of person that they are; this can also include lifestyle factors such as victims who brazenly display their wealth. ‘Positivist Perspective’ examines which social and psychological characteristics of victims make them different from and more vulnerable than, non-victims. An example of positivist victimology is Marvin Wolfgang's (1958) study of 588 homicides in Philadelphia. Wolfgang found that 26% involved victim precipitation – the victim triggered the events leading to the murder (Spalek, B. 2006 p34).

However, in some cases the abuse is a learned behavior of others around them, the abusers may feel they were not being recognized for all they do, and family history can contribute to abuse.

In victimology, there are still many unanswered questions and difficulties to find patterns that would easily classify victims, because nobody is exempt from becoming a victim. Nevertheless, some clichéd views about victims are embedded in our society. For example, Christie (1986) describes the idea of the ideal victim, which is, in fact a person who is easily given the status of being a victim. Ideal victims are perceived as blameless, law-abiding, usually female, vulnerable and worthy of help, sympathy and attention. Walklate (2005) used the fairytale of little red riding hood to illustrate the ‘ideal victim’; young, innocent, female out doing good deeds only to be attacked by

In addition, there are other factors that influences people’s perception of domestic violence which can impact the victim. Some factor are the effects of domestic violence myths, decision to return, and victim–abuser relationship on victim blame. Domestic violence myths significantly contribute to the victim being blamed for the situation they are in. According to , victims are blamed more when they decide to return to their abuser. This finding suggests that when individuals observe a victim of domestic violence returning to her abuser, they tend to blame her more. They also judge or criticize the victim by minimizing the seriousness of the situation. Not only do personal domestic violence myths impact the victim, but also the communities and their beliefs.

Violence begins at a very young age. Even if children are not exposed to an abusive household, they still experience violence in cartoons and toys. Children of abused homes learn that violence is used to resolve conflicts. Boys grow up more likely to be abusers and girls grow up more likely to be victims of abusive relationships.

The traditional criminal justice system is criticized for its neglect of victim importance and needs, for example (Symonds, 1980) acknowledges, that the criminal justice system is concerned about looking back at the event rather than focusing on how to rehabilitate and as a consequence making victims be in a ‘secondary victimization’ effect. This is the attitudes, behaviors and the beliefs of the people in the criminal

“The key characteristics of positivist victimology can be described as, the identification of factors which contribute a non-random pattern of their own victimisation, a focus on interpersonal crimes of violence and a concern to identify victims who may have contributed to their own victimisation.”

Sherry Hamby is a professor of psychology at the University of the South. She is also the founding editor of the APA’s Psychology of Violence journal. In the article “The Psychology of Victim-Blaming” she explains why the blame is turned back on the victims. As i was reading the article Sherry Hamby stated the “ the biggest factor that promotes victim-blaming is something called the just world hypothesis.” she is saying not only the victim is blamed but the bad person is not getting held accountable.

For most individuals, the thought of blaming the victim of a tragic experience for their own pain and suffering, seems preposterous. However, ascribing at least some of the blame to the victim is not uncommon (Niemi & Young, 2014). Victim blaming refers to individuals finding reasons to hold the victim of an incident responsible for the crime that took place (Hayes, Lorenz & Bell, 2013). For victims of sexual assault, who may already be experiencing self-blame and distrust of others, being blamed adds insult to injury (Harber, Podolski, & Williams, 2015). According to Harber et. al, victim blaming can also have long-term effects on victims, such as, increased anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. In an effort to increase support and resources for survivors of sexual assault researchers must determine why individuals are prone to blaming the victims rather than the perpetrator of a crime.

The study of victimology includes several different theories. These theories are victim-based, interactional, societal-based, and ecological. However, before on can begin discussing these theories, the history of the development of victimology theories need to be broached. Although victimology may lack a singular theoretical foundation based within the field itself, it can be said that the field as a whole represents the application of several different theoretical insights that were developed from other disciplines. The first of these other disciplines is criminology. From his work, Vold (1958) was able to provide a framework for categorizing theories that relate to victimology. Within this paper the discussion will begin with the early spiritual explanations, followed by