Who is wrong and who is wronged?

Victims evoke a sense of guilt, empathy, and compassion. When someone is a victim, they are the ones being wronged. Perpetrators are looked at with scornful eyes, anger and sometimes even hatred. When someone is a perpetrator, that person is a wrongdoer. But the world isn't always so black and white. What happens when perpetrators are wronged, and the perceived victims are actually the wrongdoers? How does one distinguish who is wrong and who is wronged, and how far should you dig to find out? We look at a person's motive, and the moral dilemma of whether enforcing our own justice through the form of revenge is acceptable or not.

The victim and perpetrator

A thief broke in to your mother's house and stole her valuables. She fought back and ended up suffering injuries trying to protect and reclaim her property. The thief's intention was to profit from any random person (just so happens to be your mother), risking hurting them in the process. Your mother's intention was to defend herself and her property. It is clear in this scenario the thief is a perpetrator, and your mother is a victim.

The perpetrator as victim

Your mother, with her property lost and herself injured, files a police report and waits for law enforcement to take action, however to no avail. A couple weeks later, she found her items on a yard sale. Furious, she stormed at the seller and caused injury to the person she thought was the thief. B-but, my mother would not do that! Let's just say she did. The injured person just so happens to be the thief that day, who was defenseless at that time just like your mother was. Now, the roles have reversed. Who is the perpetrator this time? If someone did not know the whole story, wouldn't they think your mother was a crazy lady attacking and stealing a random person's items? Your mother's intention was to reclaim her property, whilst the thief was just trying to protect himself. Enforcing justice in this manner, is it acceptable? Isn't there a better way?

The victim as perpetrator

The brawl was getting intense, and your mother decided to flee the scene. In her frantic mode, she was not paying attention to a driver who was halfway through making a turn. The fully aware driver was caught off-guard by a delirious woman appearing out of nowhere. Next moment your mother was with a breathing tube down her throat and wires taped to her body. She might never wake up, and the longer she stays the more debt accumulates. You remember sitting next to her still body, wondering...why did this have to happen? Lost and confused, you came to the conclusion that it was the thief's fault that got your mother in a near-death state. It was all his fault, and what better way to make him feel the pain you felt by...hurting his mother back?

The dilemma

You were neither the victim of theft nor was the thief's mom a perpetrator, so why was it that suddenly there was a strong intent to harm an innocent woman bubbling inside of you? At which point did enforcing justice involve harming the innocent? Was the thief's mother part of a problem because she raised her son that way? What if she tried during her lifetime but there were just things that was out of her control? Did she deserve retribution for a crime she didn't commit? Was she part of a problem because she was not part of the solution? To which extent should she be punished? Should the enforcer of justice be...you?

The conclusion

I realize after pondering for so long about what is right and what is wrong - that there isn't always a black and white answer to who is the wrongdoer and who is the wronged. How would the current justice system address a case like above, reflected in other forms? And above it all, how is it that you or I feel about the victim or perpetrator? Revenge is a vicious cycle and until someone breaks it...just as Gandhi once said: "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind."