Consulting victims.

[cantata]

This cropped up elsewhere, so let's discuss it properly:

It seems completely silly to me that victims are consulted about public policy regarding whatever it is that they were a victim of. For example, a British young woman named Leah Betts died after taking an ecstasy pill several years ago. (It actually turned out that she'd died from water intoxication, not complications with the ecstasy she took, but that's beside the point.) Her father is invariably consulted whenever anyone thinks about relaxing drug prohibition in this country. Similarly, train crash victims are always interviewed on the news about train safety, and parents who have had children abducted are encouraged by the tabloid press to demand harsher punishments for people who have molested children, or to have a say in their sentencing.

Being a victim does not make you an expert. Victims are in the worst position to make judgements about the things that have caused them to become victims. They have a vested interest in certain outcomes; they are likely to overestimate risks or damaging effects; and they are likely, especially immediately after a tragedy, to be in a heightened emotional state. Even if they so happen to be experts in a relevant field - say, if a doctor's child happens to get autism after she receives a vaccine - this doctor should be the last doctor you would consult about the risks of that particular vaccine. She has an emotional involvement with the question which is likely to cloud her judgement.

Yet we wheel victims to the front time and again, both in the media, and, more worryingly, to discuss matters of law and public policy. This obviously needs to stop. It's reactionary and it panders to irrationality. I have sympathy with victims, of course, but I do not regard them as experts just because bad things have happened to them.

 

[RangerJoe]

This cropped up elsewhere, so let's discuss it properly:

It seems completely silly to me that victims are consulted about public policy regarding whatever it is that they were a victim of. For example, a British young woman named Leah Betts died after taking an ecstasy pill several years ago. (It actually turned out that she'd died from water intoxication, not complications with the ecstasy she took, but that's beside the point.) Her father is invariably consulted whenever anyone thinks about relaxing drug prohibition in this country. Similarly, train crash victims are always interviewed on the news about train safety, and parents who have had children abducted are encouraged by the tabloid press to demand harsher punishments for people who have molested children, or to have a say in their sentencing.

Being a victim does not make you an expert. Victims are in the worst position to make judgements about the things that have caused them to become victims. They have a vested interest in certain outcomes; they are likely to overestimate risks or damaging effects; and they are likely, especially immediately after a tragedy, to be in a heightened emotional state. Even if they so happen to be experts in a relevant field - say, if a doctor's child happens to get autism after she receives a vaccine - this doctor should be the last doctor you would consult about the risks of that particular vaccine. She has an emotional involvement with the question which is likely to cloud her judgement.

Yet we wheel victims to the front time and again, both in the media, and, more worryingly, to discuss matters of law and public policy. This obviously needs to stop. It's reactionary and it panders to irrationality. I have sympathy with victims, of course, but I do not regard them as experts just because bad things have happened to them.

Agreed. (I don't have anything else to say as you've already said it)

 

[keith99]

In all the cases you describe I agree and more. For more often than not it makes them a victim a second time, hauled out in front of the cameras to relive and resuffer the tradegy.

But there are cases that are different. Those are the ongoing problem cases. Lets say school bullies or nursing homes. In those cases the victims are experts in a part of the problem and often do have important things to say that the rest of us need to hear.

Actually the train example given can fit there also, but the part the victims have is conditions on one train and what happened on one trip. Not experts but witnesses.

 

[cantata]

I'd agree with you that victims need to be consulted about the effects of bullying, but if you are to try to reduce the incidence of bullying - rather than trying to treat victims - then victims may be of less use to you than psychologists.

I suppose the point is that victims can present you with evidence - the bully said this to me; there were no accessible fire extinguishers on the train after the accident - but their opinions - bullies are psychopaths; trains need more fire extinguishers - are not usually so reliable. Those sorts of judgements about the best course of action should be left to experts, given the evidence presented by witnesses, including victims.

 

[stan1980]

I can't tell you how much it used to annoy me seeing Leah Betts' parents, particularly her dippy ex-plod of a dad, on the television every time there was a hint of leniency being shown towards the classification of drugs. A perfect example of why victims or victims relatives should not be consulted on such matters, if you don't mind me saying

 

[FaithLikeARock]

I'm tempted to go back the McCanns. That case makes me so angry.

Whatever. I agree with you entirely. I heard a story a while ago about a girl was was beaten by six of her peers and the beating was video taped. The girls beating her apparently wanted to advertise the video and become famous. And so the TV station brilliantly advertised the video and put all the spotlight on the victim and her attackers like it was solving a problem. If I were in that situation, I would not want to be interviewed thanks. To put that kind of pressure on people in those situations is sick.

 

[Merlin]

Like Brady and the gun control lobbyists?

Yes. keep it out of politics .

 

[mpok1519]

Yes; for some reason, we always look towards the victims of problems for answers we know they dont have.

not smart.