Victim blaming as collateral damage: professionals on court hearings in cases of rape, assault, and fraud

This study investigates legal professionals’ understanding of the attribution of moral guilt to complainants in court hearings, comparing rape, assault, and fraud cases in Sweden. Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, and complainants’ counsels. The findings suggest that while professionals assert that attributions of moral guilt to complainants are rare, complainants may perceive blame due to misinterpretation of legally relevant questions. Undue attribution of moral guilt occasionally occurs, particularly during defence cross-examination. Strategies to mitigate the risk of blame include ensuring that hearings are respectful and fact oriented, addressing victim-blaming issues in professional development courses, and preparing complainants prior to hearings. In our study, the attribution of moral guilt predominantly centred on rape cases, which may be due to historical discourse and sensitivity surrounding sexual assault cases. The study highlights the need for further research into mechanisms of attributing moral guilt to complainants and into sources of tension that contribute to negative experiences for complainants.