Who is Responsible for a Crime? The Victim or the Perpetrator?

[Quintessence]

Okay. Leave your keys in your car and a 14 year old steals it and runs someone down in a crosswalk and you're Man of the Year. Your actions have weight, and you are responsible for them. Everyone makes mistakes, but that doesn't release you from the necessity of accepting responsibility for your misstakes. See, I put an extra 's' in mistake, and I acknowledge that it's my faullt. The extra 'l' in fault wasn't me, though. It was society.

Let me clarify. What I object to is claiming someone is a moron because of a behavior. Granted I disagree with some of what's being spouted here, but that's neither here nor there with respect to the original point I intended to make.

 

[Wirey]

Let me clarify. What I object to is claiming someone is a moron because of a behavior. Granted I disagree with some of what's being spouted here, but that's neither here nor there with respect to the original point I intended to make.

Spouted!

Yeah, I use moron as a catch-all. Perhaps I should have said "irresponsible schmuck".

 

[Revoltingest]

Occasionally a crime victim bears some responsibility. Leave your keys in the ignition at the mall, and your car gets stolen, try not to look surprised. It doesn't make what the other guy did right, but it does mean you're a moron.

I've got a scenario with a guilty victim.....
Leave handgun in unlocked car.
Both the thief & the gun's former owner are each guilty (of different misdeeds).
Some might disagree, but I say gun ownership is an affirmative responsibility to handle them properly.

 

[nazz]

Does the victim of a crime ever bear a measure of guilt or moral responsibility for the crime?

For instance, is the victim of a murder, rape, or robbery ever morally responsible for being victimized?

It seems to me that, if we say the victim has even an iota of moral responsibility for the crime committed against them, then we are at best lessening the moral guilt of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator's responsibility to have not committed the crime. In practice, that can easily slide into actually condoning or excusing the crime to some extent or another.

Usually, when this topic is debated, some one person or another mentions the fact that people can increase their risk of becoming victims by their actions.

That strikes me as both true and obvious. However, I do not believe that someone who increases their risk of becoming a victim thereby incurs any moral guilt for becoming a victim. Instead, I believe the entire burden of guilt remains with the perpetrator. If it didn't -- if the perpetrator's guilt were lessened or reduced by victimizing people who were "asking for it" -- that would amount to an argument that perpetrators had to one extent or another a right to victimize people. Such an argument would be heinous.

Now, the thought occurs to me that English lacks a much needed word. A word that means the same as "responsibility" but without any implications of guilt, especially moral guilt.

The closest English might have to such a word could be the phrase, "personal responsibility", but only if and when "personal responsibility" is understood to be distinct from moral responsibility.

If English had such a word, then it would be much easier to express the idea that a person should take personal responsibility not to be mugged by avoiding a known den of thieves without implying that they are in any way the morally guilty party if they actually do enter a den of thieves and are mugged.

Your thoughts, please?

I guess this relates to you other thread. I totally agree with where you are going with this. First off I totally reject things like blame, guilt, moral responsibility, etc, when it comes to this subject. To me it all goes back to karma which I see as morally neutral. We do need to take personal responsibility for the part we play in creating our own negative karma. This can be as innocent as taking a wrong turn down a dark alley and getting mugged as a result.