Victim blaming as collateral damage: professionals on court hearings in cases of rape, assault, and fraud
Based on:
Journal Article (2025)
Investigates how victim blaming emerges as a collateral consequence during court hearings in cases of rape, assault, and fraud, as perceived by legal professionals.
Brief by:
In Sweden, the legal system has faced scrutiny over its handling of cases involving rape, assault, and fraud, particularly concerning the treatment of victims during court proceedings. There is a growing concern that victims are often subjected to blame, which can exacerbate their trauma and hinder justice. This issue is compounded by societal attitudes that may influence legal professionals’ perceptions and actions. Previous research has highlighted gaps in understanding how these attitudes manifest in court settings, and there is a need to explore the perspectives of those within the legal system to address these challenges effectively.
This article examines how victim blaming emerges as an unintended but systematic outcome of professional practices in court hearings involving rape, assault, and fraud. Drawing on qualitative interviews with legal professionals, the authors analyse how assessments of credibility, responsibility, and rational behaviour are routinely produced during judicial proceedings. The study shows that victim blaming is rarely explicit or intentional. Instead, it arises through institutional logics of legal reasoning, where victims’ actions, emotions, and decisions are scrutinised in order to establish facts, intent, and accountability. These practices tend to normalise expectations of “appropriate” victim behaviour, making deviations appear suspicious or blameworthy. Importantly, the article demonstrates that victim blaming operates as collateral damage of efforts to ensure legal objectivity and procedural fairness. Even well-intentioned professionals may reproduce narratives that shift responsibility onto victims, particularly in cases where evidence is limited and credibility becomes central. The findings highlight the need for greater reflexivity within legal institutions, including training and guidelines that address how routine professional practices can inadvertently reinforce victim-blaming dynamics. The article is relevant for judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, policymakers, and educators seeking to improve justice processes for victims of violence and fraud.
Key findings
Legal professionals perceive victim blaming as an unintended consequence of court proceedings in cases of rape, assault, and fraud.
Evidence
Interviews with 25 legal professionals, including judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, revealed that 80% acknowledged instances where victims were implicitly or explicitly blamed during hearings. One prosecutor noted, ''The questioning can sometimes shift focus onto the victim's actions rather than the perpetrator's.''
What it means
This perception underscores the need for reforms in courtroom practices to ensure that victims are treated with respect and that the focus remains on the accused's actions.
The adversarial nature of court proceedings contributes to the occurrence of victim blaming.
Evidence
70% of the interviewed professionals indicated that the adversarial system, which pits defense against prosecution, often leads to aggressive questioning of victims. A defense attorney stated, ''It's part of the strategy to challenge the victim's credibility, but it can come across as blaming.''
What it means
The structure of legal proceedings may inadvertently prioritize winning over justice, highlighting the need for procedural changes to protect victims.
Training and awareness among legal professionals can mitigate victim blaming.
Evidence
60% of participants suggested that increased training on victim sensitivity and awareness could reduce instances of victim blaming. A judge remarked, ''We need more workshops on understanding victim psychology to handle cases better.''
What it means
Enhancing training programs for legal professionals could lead to more empathetic and fair treatment of victims in court.
Comments
You must log in to ask a question
Are you a researcher looking to make a real-world impact? Join Acume and transform your research into a practical summary.
Already have an account? Log in
Discover more
Sponsored links
Victim blaming as collateral damage: professionals on court hearings in cases of rape, assault, and fraud
Cite this brief: Jacobsson, Maritha. 'Victim blaming as collateral damage: professionals on court hearings in cases of rape, assault, and fraud'. Acume. https://www.acume.org/r/victim-blaming-as-collateral-damage-professionals-on-court-hearings-in-cases-of-rape-assault-and-fraud/
Brief created by: Professor Maritha Jacobsson | Year brief made: 2025
Original research:
- Jacobsson, M., (2025) ‘Victim blaming as collateral damage: professionals on court hearings in cases of rape, assault, and fraud’ 52(2), pp. 229–248. –
Research brief:
Investigates how victim blaming emerges as a collateral consequence during court hearings in cases of rape, assault, and fraud, as perceived by legal professionals.
In Sweden, the legal system has faced scrutiny over its handling of cases involving rape, assault, and fraud, particularly concerning the treatment of victims during court proceedings. There is a growing concern that victims are often subjected to blame, which can exacerbate their trauma and hinder justice. This issue is compounded by societal attitudes that may influence legal professionals’ perceptions and actions. Previous research has highlighted gaps in understanding how these attitudes manifest in court settings, and there is a need to explore the perspectives of those within the legal system to address these challenges effectively.
This article examines how victim blaming emerges as an unintended but systematic outcome of professional practices in court hearings involving rape, assault, and fraud. Drawing on qualitative interviews with legal professionals, the authors analyse how assessments of credibility, responsibility, and rational behaviour are routinely produced during judicial proceedings. The study shows that victim blaming is rarely explicit or intentional. Instead, it arises through institutional logics of legal reasoning, where victims’ actions, emotions, and decisions are scrutinised in order to establish facts, intent, and accountability. These practices tend to normalise expectations of “appropriate” victim behaviour, making deviations appear suspicious or blameworthy. Importantly, the article demonstrates that victim blaming operates as collateral damage of efforts to ensure legal objectivity and procedural fairness. Even well-intentioned professionals may reproduce narratives that shift responsibility onto victims, particularly in cases where evidence is limited and credibility becomes central. The findings highlight the need for greater reflexivity within legal institutions, including training and guidelines that address how routine professional practices can inadvertently reinforce victim-blaming dynamics. The article is relevant for judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, policymakers, and educators seeking to improve justice processes for victims of violence and fraud.
Findings:
Legal professionals perceive victim blaming as an unintended consequence of court proceedings in cases of rape, assault, and fraud.
Interviews with 25 legal professionals, including judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, revealed that 80% acknowledged instances where victims were implicitly or explicitly blamed during hearings. One prosecutor noted, ”The questioning can sometimes shift focus onto the victim’s actions rather than the perpetrator’s.”
This perception underscores the need for reforms in courtroom practices to ensure that victims are treated with respect and that the focus remains on the accused’s actions.
The adversarial nature of court proceedings contributes to the occurrence of victim blaming.
70% of the interviewed professionals indicated that the adversarial system, which pits defense against prosecution, often leads to aggressive questioning of victims. A defense attorney stated, ”It’s part of the strategy to challenge the victim’s credibility, but it can come across as blaming.”
The structure of legal proceedings may inadvertently prioritize winning over justice, highlighting the need for procedural changes to protect victims.
Training and awareness among legal professionals can mitigate victim blaming.
60% of participants suggested that increased training on victim sensitivity and awareness could reduce instances of victim blaming. A judge remarked, ”We need more workshops on understanding victim psychology to handle cases better.”
Enhancing training programs for legal professionals could lead to more empathetic and fair treatment of victims in court.