There is something I have read a few times, that people who are victims of crimes are usually “volunteers.” The idea seems to be that most people who are victims of crimes are so because of their own behavior or actions, such as the places they go or choose to live, the people they associate with, etc. It’s not really blaming the victim, as I read it, but it seems to be saying if people made different choices, they would be less likely to be the victim of a crime.
I’m interested in what people on this board think of this idea. Have you heard this saying? Do you agree or not?
People involved in criminal activity often become victims themselves as a result. I think in those cases it’s fair to consider them responsible for their own misfortunes.
Okay. But, for example, say someone who works in the sex industry. These women are often the victims of crime. If they didn’t work in the sex industry, they would be less likely to be the victim of crime. I’m not suggesting they are responsible for being victims, or blaming the victim. No one deserves to be the victim of crime. Blaming the victim would suggest they deserve it, and that’s not what I’m saying. I’m not sure what others mean, however, when they say people are ‘volunteers,’ but I am not suggesting that. However, if you work in a profession that makes you more vulnerable, doesn’t that suggest you are setting yourself up to be a victim, even though it shouldn’t be that way, that no one deserves to be victimized?
Yes, some people take risks. But they don’t only risk crime, some people drive a lot and increase their chances of being in an accident, some people risk their health through their behavior. Risk taking isn’t something to isolate in the case of crime and consider that any different than other risks.
Most women who work in the “sex industry”, particularly those who work in the branch which is most vulnerable to crime, i.e., prostitutes, do so because they have few other choices (or few that are not distinctly worse). They have not really volunteered to be prostitutes. They have not been confronted with the choice to be either a prostitute or a corporate lawyer, or an upper-middle-class housewife, and freely chosen prostitute. Much the same goes for most other people who get into situations where they are more than usually vulnerable to crime. People who live in crime riddled areas, for instance, usually do so because they cannot afford to live (or to move to) anywhere better. They don’t much want to be there, but they don’t really have a choice. Yes, there are exceptions, but that is what they are: exceptions.
And yes, calling people who are victims of crime “volunteers” (something I have never heard of before this thread, by the way) totally is blaming the victim. I think what you mean to say is that sometimes crime victims deserve some blame, and that may be true in some cases, but cases where the victim deserves a large share of the blame are the exceptions rather than the rule, and your example is not a good one.
I am not saying it! I have tried to be very explicit: this is terminology I have heard used by others. And I have explicitly said I don’t think anyone deserves to be the victim of crime. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I am wondering what other people think of this concept.
Actually, you are creating a perfect analogy for my point. The fact that I posted this question is causing people to, at least indirectly, accuse me of blaming the victim, when, in fact, I am doing no such thing. So, have I ‘volunteered’ for those acccusations just by posting this thread? Would it have been better for me to just not express the question and avoid such accusations?
The idea that has been expressed about taking risks makes some sense to me, but are some risks necessary to live a full life, or are some just poor judgement?
I am not saying it! I have tried to be very explicit: this is terminology I have heard used by others. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I am wondering what other people think of this concept.
Their your words. Don’t blame us if you don’t like how they taste.
I what I think is that the “blame the victim” mentality you describe is the product of one of two types of thinking:
Sheltered, entitled middle class people who never suffered any real adversity and can’t wrap their minds around why anyone would choose not to live in a safe, middle class, suburban community vs some run down ghetto.
People who suffer from a victim mentality. It’s the same sort of mindset you see in women who blame themselves for a beating because they should know better than to burn his dinner.
That said, there are proactive steps you can take to lessen the chance of becoming a victim. And certain actions or lack of actions (ie not locking your car, walking around flashing a lot of cash, walking around a strange neighborhood at night, etc) can make you a more likely target of crime.
I did hear this phrase once used by a police officer lecturing civilians (mostly women) on how to avoid becoming victims of violent crime. I think the speaker was just trying to make a point, stressing that being cautious and alert can make one less likely to be targeted, but it struck me as an odd turn of phrase.
Failing to take precautions, drinking too much, venturing alone into dicey areas, etc. may make one a more likely victim, but not a willing victim, which the word “volunteer” implies.
I’ve heard this kind of talk from what I considered to be fairly cultish New Age (maybe with a Christian bent) types who are into The Law of Attraction (The Secret). I don’t recall the term “volunteers” being used specifically, but it sure fits the pattern.
What I saw was pure, classic, Psyc 101 Blaming the Victim, with a thin veneer of sanctimonious holy/magic bullshit.
I’m not surprised the OP has raised some hackles with this reframing of the word “volunteer”. That kind of twisted thinking is insipid and infuriating.
As for me, I think it is possible to discuss various risk factors in crime, or even to discuss whether some people sometimes intentionally place themselves at greater risk out of some underlying self-destructive tendency, without merely engaging in “blaming the victim” fallacious thinking. But you aren’t going to get there from here.
Once again we must deal with the stultifyingly complex concept that criminals are responsible for crimes, and at the very same time a victim can be a moron. I understand how easily this confuses people, but it does not mean that victims can be blamed for crimes, only for being morons.
I’ve seen a very similar argument to this one used by senior managers in business, to justify treating their workers like shit - “you choose to be here” - it’s not nearly as blunt as “if you don’t like it, leave” - it’s more “your consent to do whatever I want to you is implied by your continued presence” - it’s a position that pretends to be empowering people, when in fact, it’s really just a way of avoiding the need to act morally.
This article does a pretty good job discussing how crime victims are sorted into high, medium and low “risk”, in the sense of the degree their actions affect the chances of victimization, though this is not a tool to assign blame, but to help investigators.
No, they are NOT my words. Read the original post again. The word ‘volunteer’ related to crime victims is something I have heard or read in the past months a couple of times. It is not mine, nor one I have used. It is not my word.
Though it is not about blame the victim or deserving being a victim of crime, it is about the level of risk one’s behavior might cause.
I think the term ‘volunteer’ is used, or was in the contexts where I heard/read it, is used in a sarcastic, kind of cynical way, but may not mean to blame the victim or say anyone is deserving of being the victim of a crime.
“A victim of opportunity.” That’s an interesting phrase. Could be the same thing that is being meant by the term ‘volunteer,’ though the latter is cynical and harsh, sarcastic.
I am surprised so few people have heard this term before. I am usually one of the last to hear new slang or idioms.