Have you ever wondered why we blame victims for the crimes committed against them? Why do we not blame the perpetrator for what they have done?
It is not difficult to find online news stories that show the extent and nature of victim blaming. The police have been criticised many times for blaming women in sexual assault cases. Women are often asked ‘Where were you?’, ‘What were you doing?’, ‘Who were you with?’, ‘What were you wearing?’
35 years ago, a Home Office crime prevention campaign explicitly advised women not to walk down dark alleyways, to cover up expensive jewellery, to walk facing traffic and to get a lift home. 15 years earlier, the emergence of the discipline of victimology had led to blame being placed on victims for the crimes committed against them because of where they were, who they were and what they were doing.
So, we can see how victim blaming has developed in recent times, but why do we continue with it? This is an important question to ask today, given the backlash from women who are angry about the attention paid to their behaviour rather than to the perpetrator’s. See, for example, the highly publicised criticism of the police advice given to women following the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer.
There are two parts to the answer.
Firstly, our society has become highly attuned to managing risks. In terms of the risks of crime, the management of these has increasingly fallen upon victims and potential victims. This is because of the perceived failure of the state and other key institutions, such as the police, to stop perpetrators committing crimes, shifting the onus onto victims and potential victims to reduce their own risks.
The second part of the answer is found in evidence which we collected as part of a research study that analysed personal safety advice given to students on UK universities’ websites. In our analysis of 94 universities’ websites, we found advice given to students of areas in cities where not to walk, where to walk, when not to walk, when to walk, how to behave, how not to behave, how to look, how not to look, and who to be with. The perpetrator was rarely mentioned, and when they were it was to reinforce what the victim or potential victim should be doing. This text displayed on one university’s website shows what we mean – the bold is their emphasis:
Robbers are also opportunists, though in general, they’re not as common as thieves. They are likely to act with accomplices, and prefer lone targets in dark places. Don’t walk home alone at night. Walk in a group, travel by taxi or stay over with friends. Your safety is worth more than the cab fare home! If you find yourself unable to pay for a taxi, call a friend or relative and ask them to pay for your ride at the other end. If you are walking at night, stay on wide, well-lit routes. In [city], main routes are covered by CCTV; dark, narrow streets are not. On and in the immediate vicinity of [university] campus, you can call [university] Security on […] – we can monitor you using our cameras for your peace of mind for as long as you’re within the area our CCTV system can observe.
While most of the advice given to students was ungendered – it did not use pronouns – it is similar to the crime prevention advice given to women 35 years ago. In advising students what to do and what not to do, if the advice is not followed, then students are blamed because ‘they were told what to do’.
Such discourse explains why we still blame victims today.
Worryingly, what we also found in our research and shown in the text above, is the overt control and surveillance of populations in public spaces – in this case students, many of whom are young and new to the cities in which they study. More research is needed to see whether such advice and surveillance makes young people anxious.
We advise that universities adopt a standard ‘personal safety’ advice website page for students, with the following in mind, with the aim of empowering students and deterring offenders:
- State what the university does to keep students safe;
- Give advice to potential victims and potential offenders;
- Use positive rather than negative language – try not to use ‘avoid’, ‘do not’, ‘make sure’, ‘always’.
In this way, the focus on victims’ and potential victims’ behaviour is carefully balanced with the university’s role in its responsibility to keep students safe and potential offenders’ role in their responsibility for the crimes they may commit. This should help us stop blaming victims for the crimes committed against them and see that others are responsible for preventing crime – including the perpetrator!
Nicola Roberts has a PhD in criminology and is an Associate Professor of Criminology at the University of Sunderland. Her research focuses on perceptions and strategies of safety and experiences of interpersonal violence in urban environments.
Lauren Doyle is a Lecturer in Social Studies, and a PhD researcher, at the University of Sunderland. Her current research aims to explore the impact of social media on youth mental health and self-image and regulating online behaviours through the incorporation of critical realist and zemiological thinking.
Mark Roberts is an independent (unaffiliated) researcher. He has a MA in Historical Research from the University of York. He is interested in research that problematises and unpacks dominant ways of thinking.
Deconstructing dangerous discourse: an analysis of personal safety advice to students on UK universities’ websites by Nicola Roberts, Lauren Doyle, and Mark Roberts for the Journal of Gender-Based Violence is available on the Bristol University Press Digital here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of Bristol University Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image credit: Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona via Unsplash