Why do we remember the perpetrators more than the victims?

I wish we didn’t have to remember either.

Turnung attention to the victim can get ugly. News papers may start abusing it for sensationalsm, the family of the victim may get into trouble, especially of someone decides they didn’t like the victim, etc. Victims names should better not be mentioned.

On the other hand, the criminal is free to point finger at. He’s the one who did the wrong thing here. Media turns a criminal into a celebrity because it sells. A horrible thing happened, and a mob of saint wannabees need someone to point finger at to feel morally superior. Such news get more ratings, and it is less unethical than turning attention to the victim. Some criminals commit crime specifically because it would give them five minutes of fame.

Those journalists did a good thing; a murderer should not be mentioned and does not deserve any attention and fame.

The victims don’t have a story. They were just doing their daily stuff. The killer on the other hand does have a story. The cops dig through all their shit and everyone wants a motive to make sense of it.

I personally wish that the media would refrain from naming anyone. Not forever but in the event the shooter was alive wait until sentencing. And if the shooter is dead give it a month until me have moved on to the next mass shooting.

There is a certain admiration for their audacity, their ruthlessness, their skill, their power.
There is mystery surrounding their motivations.

The victims on the other hand just went down like chumps. Losers. Sad.

I always remember the victims first and foremost of all. I have zero tolerance for crazies that act out their illnesses on innocent others. So sorry you are mentally il but you need to be taken out before you can do any more harm. The victims are always the most important, always.

@ragingloli Went down like chumps and losers? Whoa…so you’re in the glorify crazy camp ey?
What’s sad is that the violent mentally ill decide to splatter their misery and upset and anger onto innocent people instead of just swallowing that gun barrel on their own. When the mentally ill garner more sympathy than their victims there is something really, really, wrong.

First of all, the premise isn’t totally true. We’ve talked a lot about Gabby Giffords. And Kitty Genovese is a famous name while I’ll bet you couldn’t tell me who raped and killed her.

There’s good reason to focus more on the perpetrator. For one, not everyone wants to be publicly scrutinized, and we’re more solicitous of victims’ privacy because they didn’t choose to become involved in the crime. If we try to get a well-rounded view of the whole person, we might find out unsavory things like that the victim has a criminal record, which will (unfairly) cause some people to care less about the crime. We could find out salacious details about their family or love life. If the crime is a major story, it’s inevitable that some contrarians will try to make the case that the victim sort of deserved it, or brought it on themselves, or was as bad as the perpetrator, etc.

Could media get around those problems by not reporting on victims with checkered pasts, and focusing only on victims who seem to have led exemplary lives? Not really. For one, you can’t make sure no one blames the victim even if the victim is known to be a saint. Also, the victim might appear completely admirable by the time the reporter’s deadline comes up, but negative facts about the victim might come to light later on. And on top of that, the media should be in the business of reporting objective facts based on some consistent principles and policies, not cherry-picking facts that will make us feel good.

Aside from all those problems, the victims of, say, a mass shooting are likely to be a random cross-section of the public. That can actually be interesting, e.g. the New York Times released a book of profiles of those who died on September 11, but as a general rule finding out details of these people won’t be any more informative than reading about any other group of randomly chosen citizens. In contrast, the shooter is more interesting simply by being more unusual, and learning more facts about the person could lead to insights about issues like crime, guns, etc.