Sex Offender's Trial Questions Culpability

Defense Attorneys Routinely Argue Sex Offenders are the real Victims

Sep 9, 2008 John Leonard Lovik

Many litigators defending sex offenders choose to portray the accused as victims merely acting out against personal wounds, forcing juries to decide who the victim is.

According to an MSNBC report, a convicted rapist pled guilty to sexually assaulting and then strangling a Clemson University student to death in her apartment. During the penalty phase of the trial, when the prosecution and defense present aggravating and mitigating factors (respectively) to help determine the crime's severity, the convicted man's attorney argued that the crimes committed were the product of an abusive past. The defense went to lengths to portray the convicted rapist as a victim of physical and sexual abuse himself; the argument being that such a traumatic upbringing makes the man's crimes an extension of psychological wounds and diminishes his culpability.

The Victim Debate

This debate on whether or not the perpetrator of a crime is responsible for his actions when they are merely acting out psychological trauma is long running and bitterly contested. For those who advocate prisoner rights the responsibility for crimes lay on the cultural and social factors that create and lead criminals. For those who advocate victim rights those responsible are simply those who perpetrate the crime.

Arguing for Convicts as Victims

The basis for arguing that convicts are acting out the wounds they received as victims themselves look to psychological advancements in understanding the effects of trauma. Since Vietnam, the idea of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has reshaped how we look at traumatic events and their shaping of the human psyche. Advocates point to the very real fact that most people convicted of sexual crimes are victims of the same crimes they commit. This, they argue, demonstrates that the responsibility of a crime lays with those who first victimized the criminal.

Arguing for Victims' Rights

Advocates for Victims' rights argue that there is a paradox for trying to shift the blame from the criminal to family history, culture, or society: in all these cases the criminal escapes punishment and responsibility can never be established. If family life were to decide responsibility there is the argument to be made that this would become a Catch-22 where all we find is a history of a family victimizing each other. Victims' rights advocates push the idea that the action is the choice of the one who commits it. Their sole argument laying in the multiple examples of persons who were abused as children, but who grew up to be upstanding citizens. This argument then focuses on the power of human choice.

The question of responsibility in crime always seems to come to the surface with our most heinous examples of human depravity. After the school shootings of Columbine, many began to look for answers why those boys would be driven to such acts of barbarism. However, too much is at stake for the United States Courts to accept a simple answer to this question. Invariably, the rights of both convict and victim must be weighed in courts and this ongoing debate simply attempts to stop either side from gaining an unjust advantage.

The copyright of the article Sex Offender's Trial Questions Culpability in Law, Crime & Justice is owned by John Leonard Lovik. Permission to republish Sex Offender's Trial Questions Culpability in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
What do you think about this article?
NOTE: Because you are not a Suite101 member, your comment will be moderated before it is viewable.
post your comment
What is 0+9?

Comments

Oct 6, 2008 7:21 PM
Guest :
Anyone who genuinely hopes for positive change in society would do well to study the victim/offender cycle. The fact is, that except for the few offenders who are actual psychopaths with no conscience at all, most offenders have a history of childhood neglect, trauma, violence & sexual abuse. The arguement that "many formerly abused persons grow up to be upstanding citizens", falls flat on it's face with further study of family dynamics. Even in the case of say, 2 brothers growing up in the same family with apparently the same influences,they will each grow up into very different adults. For one thing, one brother may be far more affected by the same actions than the other will be. Besides that, family dynamics can change a great deal over the years, so that the dynamics that were in action during the childhood of one brother could be very different from those affecting the other just a few years later. Each individual is shaped by a combination of their own genetic traits and the environment they grew up in. To compare people using broad generalities does a disservice not only to these people but to the person making the comparisons him/herself because doing this effectively prevents their gaining a real understanding of a situation.

Being a victim, or being close to a victim of violence is one of the most devastating experiences possible. We naturally want answers, and the angrier we are the faster we want these answers. We want someone to "pay for what they did". Unfortunately this anger too often leads to more violence and the cycle continues with no one the wiser and no one healed.

Those of us who know in our hearts that healing is what is needed to break the victim/offender cycle are often seen as fools, idealists or hopeless dreamers.But the reality is that the work of healing, which involves dealing with the most painful & frightening parts of our past as well as finding forgiveness for both ourselves and those who harmed us~~~this healing process is one of the toughest journeys we will ever go on. It's not for wimps or the faint of heart !

At any rate, I thank Mr.Lovik for this article and for shining a light in the only direction where there is the opportunity to create much needed change.



1 Comment: