The use of forensics evidence has always been important to helping solve legal cases. However, with new technologies that enable forensics experts to fingerprint suspects through sophisticated DNA analysis, even old cases that have been left open for decades are now being solved with the help of forensics evidence. One such case is the notorious case of Dr. Sam Shephard, who was falsely imprisoned for the killing of his wife for a decade before being released from prison. Recent DNA testing has shown without doubt that Shephard did not commit the killing. However, forensics evidence and the testimony of forensic psychologists aid in helping solve cases and win prosecutions to a greater degree today than ever before. For example, one forensics expert in the O. J. Simpson trial argued that the bloody sock found in Simpson’s home showed that blood had seeped from one side to the other, proving that no foot was in the sock at the time the blood was put on it. This backed up the defense’s argument that the blood was planted. However, prosecutors contended that his murdered wife, Nicole, may have grabbed the sock on both sides with her bloody hands as she lay at his feet dying, which would account for the particular blood patterns. Forensics psychology “is concerned with emotional and behavioral questions and issues that relate to law and the legal system” (Forensic, 2000, 1).
For the purposes of this analysis, we are interested in the emotional and behavioral aspects of blaming the victims of crimes for having some culpability in their own victimization. For example, Lyle and Erik Menendez, two Beverly Hills teenagers who fatally shot their parents to death in the living room of their home, were portrayed by the defense as victims. The defense argued that the boys killed their parents because of years of physical and mental abuse and because the boys feared their parents were about to kill them because they had threate...