Underlying attitudes re: bias towards offender?

[Bilby]

Many people have lobbied the state government for decades (Australia) regarding increasing penalties for violent crime and for legal reform generally. Basically, the adversarial system is not empathetic towards the victim. This is understandable to a degree, considering that the system is run by defence barristers, but there must be other factors as well. Most Australians for instance, are very much pro the victim, but there is a smaller but equally passionate group who seem to be pro leniency, and the offender in general. They are quite disparaging towards the victim.

Has anyone here studied enough psychology to understand the motivating factors why a person would lack empathy for the victim, but sympathise almost exclusively with the perpetrator? I would imagine violent criminals, particularly in crimes against women, would more than likely lack empathy generally, and there could also be misogynistic elements as well. Does this explain why the system is so resistant to change? All of the judges, lawyers, legislators simply lack empathy for the victim? Are they all basically misogynistic?

Any comments appreciated.

[DavidOdden]

Has anyone here studied enough psychology to understand the motivating factors why a person would lack empathy for the victim, but sympathise almost exclusively with the perpetrator?

I suspect that you misperceive the situation. Generally, everybody empathises with the victim. It it a virtue, though, that people do not automatically assume that the accused is guilty. There are of course people who grant the technical guilt of the accused but also consider the accused to be another victim (of society or their parents). This is a case of over-empathizing, often based on poor evidence of victimhood.

Crimes against women are a funny case, since they are mislabeled. They really aren't crimes against women, they are crimes against the weaker half of a relationship. That is most often women in hetero relationships. The problem there, I think, comes from knowledge that people can be pretty dishonest in their statements about relationships. That's why external evidence is really important.

[fletch]

but there is a smaller but equally passionate group who seem to be pro leniency

I suspect that these people are the same vocal group of collectivists who reserve their harshest words and confiscatory taxation policies for the weathiest, most successful citizens. The rich, they believe, are not virtuous, but lucky. The criminal, however, simply lacks the good fortune of their successful counterparts. It is not the criminals fault that he was born under some dark, horrible star. Were it not for a simple twist of fate, the man on death row for murder might be CEO of GE.

They argue that the virtuous must share their wealth with a society that is 'entitled' to its rightful share of their prosperity. As society must share in the virtue, so it must, logically, share in the vice. The criminal is, therefore, never totally to blame for his actions. Society played a role. The criminal is really the victim here. He is a victim of societies' injustice. Since society is largely to blame for his actions, not the man, the criminal deserves leniency. I am no psychologist, but that is the conclusion I have drawn from dealing with the pro-leniency crowd.