> IF you are mugged on a midnight stroll through the park, some people will feel compassion for you, while others will admonish you for being there in the first place.<p>(I'm assuming in the following that the park is known to be dangerous at night).<p>And some, like me, might do both.<p>Suppose they took such a stroll, but did <i>not</i> get mugged. Then admonishing them for taking that reckless stroll would clearly not be blaming the victim because there is no victim. The question in deciding whether or not to admonish them in this case is whether or not it might help them avoid making future bad decisions.<p>So why should that change if they <i>do</i> get mugged? The mugging does not retroactively alter whether or not the earlier decision to walk through the park was reckless, and if an admonishment from me would discourage them from doing the same thing in the future then it is still useful just as it is in the no mugging case.<p>So, I'd feel and express compassion over the mugging, and also admonish them for the flawed decision making that led them to take a walk through the dangerous park to try to reduce the chances it happens to them again (but only if I didn't think the mugging itself would do that).