Topic: Should victims be held accountable when their identity is misused by others?
Introduction
In modern society, identity is not only a legal construct but also a core element of personal dignity. However, when one’s identity is misused by another—particularly in sensitive contexts such as marriage or employment—the consequences can be deeply unjust. This essay argues that victims of identity theft should never be held responsible for the actions of impersonators, and that societal and institutional responses must prioritize protection over misplaced accountability.
Body Paragraph 1 – The Violation of Identity
When an individual’s name or social status is used without consent, it constitutes a serious breach of personal rights. In cases where a woman discovers that another person—such as a bar worker—has used her name to enter into marriage, the issue is not merely reputational. It is a direct assault on her autonomy and legal identity. Holding the victim accountable in such cases is not only illogical but also retraumatizing, as it shifts the burden of explanation and apology onto the wronged party.
Body Paragraph 2 – Gendered Expectations and Social Bias
Often, these situations are further complicated by gendered expectations and occupational stigma. When the impersonator is associated with a marginalized profession, such as nightlife work, society may project shame or suspicion onto the victim rather than the perpetrator. This reflects a broader pattern of blaming women for the actions of others, especially in patriarchal or tightly knit communities. The expectation that the victim should apologize or remain silent reinforces systemic inequality.
Body Paragraph 3 – The Role of Institutions and Legal Clarity
Institutions must play a proactive role in protecting individuals from identity misuse. Legal systems should clearly distinguish between the impersonator and the impersonated, and ensure that victims are not forced into defensive positions. Moreover, public awareness campaigns are needed to educate communities about the psychological and legal implications of identity theft. Without such measures, victims will continue to suffer not only from the initial violation but also from secondary harm inflicted by social misunderstanding.
Conclusion
Victims of identity misuse should never be expected to apologize for crimes committed against them. Instead, society must shift its focus toward holding impersonators accountable and supporting those whose identities have been violated. Only then can we begin to restore justice and uphold the dignity of every individual.