Module #2: Do people bear some of the responsibility for their victimization if they maintain a lifestyle that contributes to the chances of becoming a crime victim? That is, should we “blame the victim”?

I believe this question may provide interesting responses. If we ‘blame the victim,’ we are essentially suggesting that simply entering a bank makes us responsible for being involved in a bank robbery, or that posting on social media means we are asking to be cyberbullied. There is no rhyme or reason for why crimes occur, and if we live our lives in fear of causing ourselves to become victims, we are not truly living. We would avoid going outside for fear of being robbed or worse.

If we start to see the victim as the criminal, it changes the way we define crime. For example, if someone explicitly asks to be punched, they share responsibility as a willing participant. However, if someone is punched during a disagreement, blaming them for the assault implies that they ‘asked for it’ by disagreeing. This mindset is a slippery slope and requires careful reflection on various scenarios.

The law is designed to protect individuals, and if we begin to blame those who did not ask for the crime to happen, we undermine the very foundation of the judicial system. This could lead to a redefinition of crime, where victims are unjustly seen as complicit, and laws might be rewritten in ways that criminalize innocent behaviors. Ultimately, this perspective erases trust in legal protections and societal normalities.