When is it a victim's fault?

Question

I ask because although many legal systems are built on the premise that we are 'innocent until proven guilty', why is it when something happens the victim is dragged through the mud, so that in the end the perpetrator is made out to be the victim? What do we need to recity in our constitutions?


*"Why is it that the innocent dead and the guilty alive, where is justice, where is punishment?" - Biohazard.

Answer 1

Hi,

In UK law.

There is a latin term used in law. It is "Volenti non fit injuria" which freely translated means contributory negligence.

You have to understand that some victims put themselves in harms way. This does not excuse the guilty but in claims for injury it can greatly reduce the compensation award.

Conversely there is "transfer of malice" If someone tried to punch you, you ducked and they hit me, the defendant would still be convicted of the assault even though I was not the intended victim.

It all depends on the situation and the evidence.

It can work both ways.

Hope this helps to give a balanced view

Answer 2

If someone is truly a victim, then it is NEVER their fault. The perpetrator always has the choice not to commit a crime.

That said, everyone has a right to a fair trial. In some cases, you are correct. The victim can get dragged through the mud as the defendent tries to prove their innocence. It is not fair, but consider the alternatives: innocent people getting thrown in jail because they were NOT allowed to defend themselves and FALSE victims dragging innocent victims through the mud in cases where the defendent really WAS innocent. That is what would happen if criminals did not have the ability to try to defend themselves.

That said, the "victim getting dragged through the mud" situation, though all too real, is not the case in the majority of trials. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Constitution and process does not need to be changed at all, but rather our perceptions on victims. Too many people blame the victims for things that are not their fault. It is a fact of life that has nothing to do with the law process.

Answer 3

All I can say is: "Bleeding Heart Liberals".

The laws have gotten to the point where the criminal has more rights than the victim. All of this stems from the 60's and 70's when civil rights were supposedly being violated of anti-war protestors and civil rights protestors. Not that some good did not come out of those times, but our law makers went too far in the other direction and forgot that victims have rights also.

Having worked in the local court system for over 26 years, I have seen the inside workings of the courts and how the laws do, at times, seem to lean towards the criminal and not the victim. The courts can only follow the laws that are enacted for them and that comes from our lawmakers that we elect.

Answer 4

Victims are not always dragged through the mud. In fact, that is a small minority of cases. Our system is far preferable to one where an indictment is a presumption of guilt and the defendant must prove he/she is innocent.

Answer 5

If a man starts a fight but ends up being badly beaten he may be termed a victim but he was the instigator

Answer 6

This is a psychological mechanism. We assume that whatever is good happens to us because we deserve it, the bad stuff is bad luck. however, for other people we assume the opposite - bad stuff happens to those who deserve it, other people get good stuff through luck.

Now put this in a legal context and you have your answer

Answer 7

I'm against codifying fairness, the only remedy needed is to use our brains when sitting on a jury

Answer 8

This craziness started with lawyers and juries filled with sympathy for criminals. It is sad.

*"Sympathy for the guilty is treason to the innocent" -Ayn Rand

Answer 9

you know ; i really don't know . something really has to be done about our Judaical system , its just not good enough.