Questions of legal blame and punishment hinge on judgments of victimhood: who is a victim and who is a victimizer? The law presumes that we judge victimhood objectively, but science shows that victimhood relies more on biased perceptions than impartial facts. The disconnect between victimhood in the law versus victimhood in our minds undermines the quest for justice. Here, we review three key psychological principles of victimhood and how they cause trouble in the judicial system. We then propose solutions to these challenges. Principle One: Victimhood is subjective—legal judgments hinge on who seems like a victim in our minds. Principle Two: Victimhood is stereotypical—who seems like a victim is biased , with people easily accepting the victimization of the vulnerable (e.g., children) but not the more powerful (e.g., strong men). Principle Three: Victimhood is sticky—once we identify the victim (or victimizer) in a situation, it is hard to change our minds. When the law fails to appreciate these principles, it causes distrust of verdicts, denials of true suffering, and continued condemnation of the exonerated. Potential solutions for these issues includes victim impact statements, restorative justice, and acknowledgments of legal errors. Understanding the true nature of victimhood is essential for a fair legal system.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Kurt Gray
H. Devine
Emily Kubin
Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences
University of Oxford
The Ohio State University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Gray et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/698c1d1d267fb587c655fafb — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322251405850