Victims or Offenders?
But real-life confrontations do not consistently generate
simple clear-cut cases that neatly fall into the
dichotomies of good and evil, and innocence
and guilt. Not all victims were weak, defenseless,
unsuspecting “lambs” who, through tragic or ironic
circumstances or just plain bad luck, were
pounced upon by cunning, vicious “wolves.”
In some instances, observers may have reasonable
doubts and honest disagreements over which
party in a conflict should be labeled the victim
and which should be stigmatized as the villain.
These complicated situations dramatize the need
for impartiality when untangling convoluted relationships
in order to make a rational argument
and a sound legal determination that one person
should be arrested, prosecuted, and punished,
and the other defended, supported, and assisted.
Unlike the black-and-white examples presented
above, many messy incidents reported in the
news and processed by the courts embody “shades
of gray.” Clashes frequently take place between
two people who, to varying degrees, are both
victims, or both wrongdoers.
[snip]
In both of the classic cases that were resolved by
the criminal justice system in ways that caused quite
an uproar and still provoke many heated discussions,
the persons officially designated as the victims by the
police and prosecutors—the dead parents, the
slashed husband—arguably could be considered by
certain standards as wrongdoers who “got what was
coming to them.” Indeed, they were viewed just
that way by substantial segments of the public and
by some jurors. The defendants who got in trouble
with the law—the shotgun-toting brothers, the
knife-wielding wife—insisted that they should not
be portrayed as criminals. On the contrary, they
contended that they actually were the genuine victims
who should not be punished: sons sexually
molested by their father, a battered woman who
was subjected to marital rape.
When different interpretations of the facts lead
to sharply divergent conclusions about who is
actually the guilty party and who is the injured
party, any knee-jerk, antioffender, pro-victim
impulses provide no guidance for action. The confusion
inherent in the unrealistically simplistic
labels of 100 percent criminal and 100 percent victim
underscores the need for objectivity when trying
to figure out who is primarily responsible for
whatever lawbreaking took place. Clearly, the
dynamics between victims and victimizers need
to be sorted out in an evenhanded and openminded
manner, not only by victimologists but
also by police officers, prosecutors, judges, and
juries. In rare instances, even the authorities can’t
make up their minds
