Questions of legal blame and punishment hinge on judgments of victimhood: who is a victim and who is a victimizer? The law presumes that we judge victimhood objectively, but science shows that victimhood relies more on biased perceptions than impartial facts. The disconnect between victimhood in the law versus victimhood in our minds undermines the quest for justice. Here, we review three key psychological principles of victimhood and how they cause trouble in the judicial system. We then propose solutions to these challenges. Principle One: Victimhood is subjective—legal judgments hinge on who seems like a victim in our minds. Principle Two: Victimhood is stereotypical—who seems like a victim is biased, with people easily accepting the victimization of the vulnerable (e.g., children) but not the more powerful (e.g., strong men). Principle Three: Victimhood is sticky—once we identify the victim (or victimizer) in a situation, it is hard to change our minds. When the law fails to appreciate these principles, it causes distrust of verdicts, denials of true suffering, and continued condemnation of the exonerated. Potential solutions for these issues includes victim impact statements, restorative justice, and acknowledgments of legal errors. Understanding the true nature of victimhood is essential for a fair legal system.
Alexander-BlochB.MillerM. A.ZeringueM. M.RubensS. L. (2020). Mental health characteristics of exonerees: A preliminary exploration. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(8), 768–775. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2020.1733571
3.
BandesS. A.SalernoJ. M. (2014). Emotion, proof and prejudice: The cognitive science of gruesome photos and victim impact statements. Arizona State Law Journal, 46(4), 1003–1056.
4.
BauguessM.VillaseñorJ. G. (2025). Restorative justice: A new conversation for victims and offenders. Judicature, 108(3), 31–36.
5.
BettensT.WarrenA. R.PicaE. (2024). Stigma or support? How gender, race, and intersectionality impact perceptions of exonerees. Women & Criminal Justice, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2024.2386654
6.
BradyW. J.JacksonJ. C.LindströmB.CrockettM. J. (2023). Algorithm-mediated social learning in online social networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(10), 947–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.06.008
7.
BrittoS.HughesT.SaltzmanK.StrohC. (2007). Does “special” mean young, white and female? deconstructing the meaning of “special” in law & order: special victims unit. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 14(1), 39–57.
CassellP. G.MorrisM. (2023). Defining “victim” through harm: Crime victim status in the crime victims’ rights act and other victims’ rights enactments. SSRN Electronic Journal, 61, 329–388. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4365790
10.
ChristieN. (1986). The ideal victim. In FattahE. A. (Ed.), From crime policy to victim policy (pp. 17–30). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-08305-3_2
11.
CikaraM.BruneauE.Van BavelJ. J.SaxeR. (2014). Their pain gives us pleasure: How intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.06.007
12.
ClowK. A.LeachA.-M. (2015). Stigma and wrongful conviction: All exonerees are not perceived equal. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(2), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2014.951645
13.
DecetyJ.CacioppoS. (2012). The speed of morality: A high-density electrical neuroimaging study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 108(11), 3068–3072. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00473.2012
14.
DufourG. K.TernesM.StinsonV. (2023). The relationship between victim impact statements and judicial decision making: An archival analysis of sentencing outcomes. Law and Human Behavior, 47(4), 484–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000535
15.
DyerR. L.PizarroD. A.ArielyD. (2022). They had it coming: The relationship between perpetrator-blame and victim-blame. Social Cognition, 40(6), 503–527. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2022.40.6.503
16.
EberhardtJ. L.DaviesP. G.Purdie-VaughnsV. J.JohnsonS. L. (2006). Looking deathworthy: Perceived stereotypicality of black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 17(5), 383–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01716.x
ErezE.TontodonatoP. (1992). Victim participation in sentencing and satisfaction with justice. Justice Quarterly, 9(3), 393–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829200091451
19.
FaisonL.SmalarzL. (2019). Perceptions of exonerees: A review of the psychological science. Albany Law Review, 83(3), 1021–1058.
20.
FredrikssonT.HeberA. (2023). Courtroom performances of masculinities and victimhood. In FlowerL.KlosterkampS. (Eds.), Courtroom ethnography (pp. 209–223). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37985-7_14
21.
Garvin, M., & LeClair, S. (2014). Use of the term “victim” in Criminal proceedings. 11th ed. National Crime Victim Law Institute,
22.
GeeraetsV.VeraartW. (2021). What is wrong with empirical-legal research into victimhood? A critical analysis of the ordered apology and the victim impact statement. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 41(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaa048
23.
GrayK. (2025). Outraged: Why we fight about morality and politics and how to find common ground. Pantheon.
24.
GrayK.KubinE. (2024). Victimhood: The most powerful force in morality and politics. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 137–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2024.03.004
25.
GrayK.MacCormackJ. K.HenryT.BanksE.ScheinC.Armstrong-CarterE.AbramsS.MuscatellK. A. (2022). The affective harm account (AHA) of moral judgment: Reconciling cognition and affect, dyadic morality and disgust, harm and purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(6), 1199–1222. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000310
GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013748
28.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814
HoekstraM. S. (2022). Messy victims and sympathetic offenders: The role of moral judgments in police referrals to restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 25(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2022.2084087
31.
HollidayJ. R.McNielD. E.MorrisN. P.FaigmanD. L.BinderR. L. (2022). The use of battered woman syndrome in U.S. criminal courts. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 50(3), 373–380. https://doi.org/10.29158/jaapl.210105-21
32.
KohlbergL. (1927–1987 [1981]). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. Harper & Row.
33.
KovaleskiS. F. (2012). Trayvon Martin case shadowed by police missteps—The New York Times. The New York Times.
34.
KubinE.GrayK. J.SikorskiC. (2023). Reducing political dehumanization by pairing facts with personal experiences. Political Psychology, 44(5), 1119–1140. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12875
35.
KubinE.PuryearC.ScheinC.GrayK. (2021). Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(6), e2008389118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008389118
36.
KubinE.von SikorskiC.GrayK. (2024). Political censorship feels acceptable when ideas seem harmful and false. Political Psychology, 46(2), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.13011
37.
LatimerJ.DowdenC.MuiseD. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505276969
38.
LensK. M.PembertonA.BransK.BraekenJ.BogaertsS.LahlahE. (2015). Delivering a victim impact statement: Emotionally effective or counter-productive?European Journal of Criminology, 12(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370814538778
39.
LewisJ. A.HamiltonJ. C.ElmoreJ. D. (2021). Describing the ideal victim: A linguistic analysis of victim descriptions. Current Psychology, 40(9), 4324–4332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00347-1
40.
LinderD. O. (2014). The George Zimmerman trial: An account.
41.
MillerA. L.BorgidaE. (2016). Moral typecasting underlies punitive responses to crime. Law and Human Behavior, 40(6), 697–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000210
42.
MillerA. S. (1969). The myth of objectivity in legal research and writing. Cath. U. L. Rev., 18(3), 290–307.
43.
National Registry of Exonerations. (2025). Exonerations in the United States. National Registry of Exonerations. https://exonerationregistry.org/
44.
NitschkeF. T.McKimmieB. M.VanmanE. J. (2019). A meta-analysis of the emotional victim effect for female adult rape complainants: Does complainant distress influence credibility?Psychological Bulletin, 145(10), 953–979. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000206
OswaldGrosjean. (2004). Confirmation bias. In Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory (pp. 79–96). Psychology Press.
47.
Pennsylvania Association for Reassessment. (2014, February 24). Today in history: The first victim impact statement. PAAR: Every Step of the Way. https://paar.net/today-in-history-feb-24/
48.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
SalernoJ. M.BeanS. R.DuranN. D.WulffA. N.ReederI.KassinS. M. (2025). Failing to express emotion on 911 calls triggers suspicion through violating expectations and moral typecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(4), 765–789. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000412
51.
ScheinC.GrayK. (2015). The unifying moral dyad: Liberals and conservatives share the same harm-based moral template. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1147–1163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215591501
52.
ScheinC.GrayK. (2018). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317698288
53.
StepanovaE. V.BrownA. L. (2021). Alcohol priming and attribution of blame in an acquaintance rape vignette. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3–4), NP1537–1560NP. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517744762
WeareS. (2018). ‘Oh you’re a guy, how could you be raped by a woman, that makes no sense’: Towards a case for legally recognising and labelling ‘forced-to-penetrate’ cases as rape. International Journal of Law in Context, 14(01), 110–131. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552317000179
57.
Weiand v. State, 732 Southern Reporter, Second Series 1044 (Florida Supreme Court). (1999).
58.
WilsonM.BromwichRansomHong. (2024, April 25). Harvey weinstein conviction overturned by N.Y. court of appeals—The New York Times. The New York Times.
59.
WomickJ.KubinE.Goya-TocchettoD.OchoaN. R.RebollarC.KapsaskisK.PrattS.DevineH.PayneK.VaiseyS.GrayK. (2025). Moral disagreement via a universal harm-based mind: Liberals and conservatives make different assumptions of vulnerability. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qsg7j
60.
WorkmanJ. E.FreeburgE. W. (1999). An examination of date rape, victim dress, and perceiver variables within the context of attribution theory. Sex Roles, 41(3–4), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018858313267
61.
WyerR. S.BodenhausenG. V.GormanT. F. (1985). Cognitive mediators of reactions to rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.324
