Victim blaming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Victim blaming is holding the victims of a crime or an accident to be in whole or in part responsible for what has happened to them.

Contents 1 In general 2 Accidents 3 Politics 4 Rape 5 History of the idea 6 Just-world hypothesis 7 Different legislatures 8 External links 9 References

[edit] In general

A more mainstream view is that everybody has the theoretical right to feel safe at all times, but that the responsibility of preventing and minimising the risk of being in a dangerous situation is largely up to the individual. On this basis, the question is not whether the victim "deserved" to be raped, because nobody "deserves" to be the victim of crime, but rather whether the individual did choose to prevent or minimize the risk of being in a dangerous situation and/or the risk of harm in a dangerous situation.

[edit] Accidents

The idea of victim-blaming can also apply to people who become victims of accidents, natural disasters, or other personal misfortunes. Commentators may blame the victims of these misfortunes for not succeeding in preventing or overcoming their misfortune. Thus, for example, the poor receive blame for their fecklessness, and the victims of famine for not having had the foresight to prepare stocks of food.

[edit] Politics

One example would be blaming the victims of terrorist attacks for the actions committed by their government or group.

[edit] Rape

In the context of rape, this concept refers to popular attitudes that certain victim behaviours (such as flirting, or wearing sexually provocative clothing) may encourage rape. In extreme cases, victims are said to have "asked for it", simply by not behaving demurely. In most Western countries, though, the defense of provocation is not accepted as a mitigation for rape.

Under cases of alleged date rape, however, the situation is different. In such cases, the critical consideration is whether or not the incident was consensual, or whether the alleged victim encouraged the accused or gave implied consent. As such, arguments about how clearly, if at all, the victim gave consent are an accepted element of an affirmative defense.

[edit] History of the idea

The phrase "Blaming the victim" is said (see Ghetto) to have been created in criticism of an early study of the modern phenomenon of ghetto formation, Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1965 work The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, usually simply referred to as the Moynihan Report. Blaming the Victim is the title of a 1971 book by William Ryan, one of the first [1] critics of the report .^[1]

[edit] Just-world hypothesis

It has been proposed that one cause of victim-blaming is the "Just World Hypothesis". People who believe that the world has to be fair, may find it hard or impossible to accept a situation in which a person is unfairly and badly hurt for no cause or reason. This leads to a sense that, somehow, the victim must have surely done 'something' to deserve their fate. Another theory entails the need to protect one's own sense of invulnerability. This inspires people to believe that rape only happens to those who deserve or provoke the assault (Schneider et. al., 1994). This is a way of feeling safer. If the potential victim avoids the behaviours of the past victims then they themselves will remain safe and feel less vulnerable. A global survey of attitudes toward sexual violence by the Global Forum for Health Research shows that victim-blaming concepts are at least partially accepted in many countries. In some countries, victim-blaming is more common, and women who have been raped are sometimes deemed to have behaved improperly. Often, these are countries where there is a significant social divide between the freedoms and status afforded to men and women. This theory dates from very ancient times: the biblical Book of Job offers a canonical exploration of it.

Supporters of this view (once referred to as "Job's comforters") must perforce accept that to do otherwise would require them to give up their belief in a just world, and require them to believe in a world where bad things — such as poverty, rape, starvation, and murder — can happen to good people for no good reason. The cognitive dissonance in doing this becomes too great, and results in victim-blaming.

[edit] Different legislatures

In the United States, rape is unique in that it is the only crime in which there are statutory protections designed in favor of the victim (known as "Rape Shield Laws"). These were enacted in response to the common defense tactic of "putting the victim on trial". Typical rape shield laws prohibit cross-examination of the victim with respect to issues, such as his or her prior sexual history, or the manner in which he or she was dressed at the time of the rape. Most states and the federal rules, however, provide exceptions to the rape shield law where evidence of prior sexual history is used to provide an alternative explanation for physical evidence, where the defendant and the victim had a prior consensual sexual relationship, and where exclusion of evidence would violate the defendant's constitutional rights.

[edit] External links

• Just World hypothesis
• The Just World hypothesis
• Victim Blame and Sexual Assault
• Types of crimes - violent crimes vs property crimes

[edit] References