Perpetrator-Excluding Language and Why It Matters

One of the most persistent failures in how abuse is recorded and responded to is linguistic. Research and survivor advocacy have long shown that systems routinely default to passive language when describing violence. Instead of naming who did what, the focus shifts to what happened to someone.

“A woman was assaulted.”

“Abuse was alleged.”

“An incident occurred.”

When the perpetrator is removed from the sentence, responsibility quietly shifts. Attention moves away from the actions and intent of the person who caused harm and toward the victim’s behaviour, credibility, memory, and response. This is not accidental. It is structural. And I have experienced it first-hand.

What the Research Shows

There is a strong academic basis for understanding how this operates in practice.

The Henley Study found that reporting on male violence against women uses passive voice far more frequently than reporting on other crimes. This framing reduces perceived harm and increases the likelihood that responsibility will be implicitly assigned to the victim.

The Just World Hypothesis helps explain why this persists. There is a deep psychological need to believe that the world is fair. When faced with evidence of abuse, systems unconsciously look for ways to explain the harm through the victim’s choices or actions, rather than interrogating the perpetrator’s behaviour.

Kate Manne’s concept of “himpathy” captures the outcome. Disproportionate empathy is extended to male perpetrators, with concern shown for their stress, reputation, or future, while survivors are met with scepticism, evidential hurdles, and procedural caution.

These dynamics are not theoretical. They are observable in live systems.

How This Appears in Practice

In my own case, the administrative and linguistic handling of my report reflected these patterns clearly.

Coercive control reframed as an isolated event

I reported coercive and controlling behaviour, which in law is defined as a course of conduct. Despite this, the behaviour was recorded as a single historic incident tied to a specific date. This linguistic reframing erased the ongoing nature of the abuse at the point of classification, making it far easier for the system to treat it as stale, low-risk, or non-actionable.

The evidential burden placed on the victim

My case was repeatedly closed on the basis of insufficient evidence, while I was not provided with clear guidance on what evidence was required, nor given accessible means to submit material. I was effectively required to act as the primary investigator and packager of my own case, while the suspect was not actively investigated.

Administrative activity prioritised over victim rights

Internal records and case log entries were cited as indicators of a robust response. However, the Victims’ Code does not measure service quality by internal documentation. It requires timely communication, transparency, safeguarding, and meaningful engagement with the victim. These elements were absent, despite the volume of internal administrative activity.

A procedural Catch-22 that removed statutory rights

I was informed that because the suspect was not interviewed under caution, I was therefore not entitled to the Victims’ Right to Review. This creates a circular outcome. A decision not to investigate is then used to justify the removal of the victim’s statutory rights, leaving the original decision entirely insulated from challenge.

At no stage did the language or process centre the perpetrator’s actions as the subject of scrutiny.

The Broader UK Context

This experience aligns with national trends.

Home Office data from 2015 to 2024 shows a sharp decline in charging rates across England and Wales, falling from approximately 16 percent of recorded crimes to around 6 percent. For rape, the charge rate sits at just over 2 percent.

More than half of domestic abuse cases are closed because the victim withdraws support. This is often framed as disengagement, but survivor testimony consistently points to secondary victimisation. The process feels less like an investigation into the suspect and more like an examination of the victim.

When perpetrators are linguistically and procedurally absent, it is the victim who remains under continuous scrutiny.

Conclusion

Perpetrator-excluding language is not neutral. It is a mechanism that shifts responsibility, risk, and labour away from the person who caused harm and onto the person who reported it.

My experience shows how this operates in practice. When coercive control is reduced to an “incident,” when evidential thresholds are imposed without support, and when statutory rights are removed through procedural decisions, the survivor becomes the only person effectively investigated.

A justice system that cannot name the perpetrator as the active subject cannot deliver justice.