Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

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.

More information Original publication

DOI

10.1177/23727322251405850

Type

Journal article

Publication Date

2026-03-01T00:00:00+00:00

Volume

13

Pages

36 - 43

Total pages

7