Dangerous Narrative: “Perfect Perpetrator”
When it comes to violence, society often squints at the victim, especially women: Her behavior, her history, and especially her choices. Why was she doing in the wrong place at the wrong time? She should know better. Did she know her attacker? How was she dressed? Wait…was she drinking? This obsession with creating the "perfect victim" — one who checks every box that society deems worthy of sympathy — perpetuates dangerous myths that displace responsibility and worst of all, minimizes the reality of violence against women.
But let’s flip the script: if there’s no such thing as a "perfect victim," then why do we allow the myth of the "perfect perpetrator?”
Reveal: The Perfect Perpetrator Doesn’t Exist
Perpetrators are continually construed as cold, calculating, anonymous monsters who commit their crimes in a vacuum, completely divorced from their past – and us. Yet, when the focus shifts to actual people and their histories, it’s a different story. Suddenly, we hear about their troubled childhoods, mental health struggles, or financial stressors. We’re called to sympathize with them. These narratives are calculated to humanize the offender and, in many cases, justify their actions or argue for leniency.
Take the case of Gisele Pelicot in France. Almost every one of the 51 perpetrators on trial for the rape of a drugged woman ridiculously claimed they, too, were victims — of their upbringing, neglect, or even of Gisele’s ex-husband who advertised online soliciting for just the crimes that they committed. Many went so far as to claim that what they did wasn’t rape, still attempting to minimize their own involvement.
Even her ex-husband’s attorney attempted to scrape the last remnants of sympathy off of the ground, lamenting how “It will be difficult to tell a 72-year-old man that he will have to spend the rest of his life in prison” - as though he were somehow stricken with an illness, and not the perpetrator of hundreds of horrific crimes against his wife of 50 years. And the French court seemed to buy into it, meting out absurd sentences compared to the crimes they committed, some as little as time served. The irony is mind-blowing: while victims are often denied the right to be flawed or complicated, perpetrators are given the benefit of the doubt, their pasts mined for reasons to reduce culpability.
Why Do We Excuse Violence?
The idea that a person’s difficult childhood or life struggles can justify or explain away their abusive/violent behavior taps into a broader issue: the need to rationalize violence in ways that let the rest of us feel safe. If we can pin violence on external factors — childhood abuse, addiction, poverty — then we can convince ourselves that "normal" people aren’t capable of committing such acts.
This is a false narrative that provides false comfort. And it leads to dangerous implications:
Excusing Predatory Behavior: Framing perpetrators as victims of circumstance shifts responsibility away from their actions and onto abstract concepts like "society" or "bad luck."
Erosion of Accountability: Acknowledging someone’s difficult past is one thing, but using it to absolve them of consequences is entirely another. By doing so, we send the message that personal hardships excuse harming others.
Dehumanizing Victims: For every perpetrator given the benefit of the doubt, there’s a victim whose humanity is overshadowed. We focus on the offender’s hardships while ignoring the irrevocable harm that they did to their target.
The Double Standard of Compassion
Victims of violence, particularly women, are rarely extended the same grace. If a victim struggles with addiction, poverty, or mental health, these factors are often used to discredit her. Yet when the tables are turned, perpetrators are lauded as "complex" individuals whose struggles demand our empathy.
This double standard reveals a deep bias: we are more inclined to empathize with those who commit violence than with those who survive it. This isn’t accidental. It’s a product of patriarchal norms that have historically framed men as rational actors and women as irrational beings, blaming women for their own victimization while excusing men for their aggression.
It’s Time to Break the Cycle
To challenge the myth of the "perfect perpetrator," we have to reframe how we think about accountability and compassion:
Accountability Is Not Vengeance: Holding someone accountable for their actions doesn’t mean ignoring their humanity. It means recognizing that their issues don’t entitle them to harm others.
Center Victims’ Voices: For every story about a perpetrator’s troubled past, there is a victim whose story is equally — if not more — important. Media coverage, court proceedings, and public discussion must prioritize the harm that was done to the victim over the “hardships” endured by the offender, ostensibly since their birth.
Reject Binary Thinking: Every human is complex, with various shades of grey depending on the day, and no one is wholly good or evil. However, this human complexity doesn’t excuse actions that harm other people. Acknowledge nuance without minimizing harm.
Shifting Focus to Where It Belongs
The myth of the "perfect perpetrator" is a dangerous narrative that allows violence to flourish unchecked. By shifting our focus away from excusing offenders and toward supporting survivors, we can begin to dismantle this harmful framework.
Society has long demanded perfection from victims, setting them up to fail. It’s time we held perpetrators to a higher standard, one that recognizes their humanity without diminishing their responsibility. Only then can we hope to create a culture where accountability and compassion coexist — and where violence is no longer excused by the “imperfections” of the perpetrator.
