The dwarven legal system is broken. So badly broken that, whether explicitly through legislation or accidentally via a loophoole, it is possible for the victim of a crime to charged, tried and convicted with the crime committed against them, in defiance of all logic and reason. Even the dwarves find this idiotic, and yet it hasn't been repealed or fixed.
How would such a law even come into being in the first place, and why/how would it be enforced instead of just being ignored?
Here are a few possible laws and traditions that could create such a situation (some more credible than others).
Guilty by lack of evidence
A law was passed to deter people from doing false accusations.
If the plaintiff can't prove the crime did happen, he is systematically charged and convicted for said crime. If the judge asks for too many pieces of evidence (multiple witnesses, culprit's confession, weapon's receipt, etc...), a trial can quickly turn against the plaintiff.
This situation can result from a general culture of mistrust, where the public is prone to doubt everyone's word.
Blame the victim
This can take multiple forms (see Tim B and King-Ink answers):
- Blaming people for not protecting themselves enough, for attracting criminals or for being at the wrong place at the wrong time
- Accusing victims of crimes to bring shame to their families, their kingdom or their race
- etc. etc.
These laws can exist in a society that despises weakness.
The one who smelt it dealt it
Following an ancient tradition, if the Dwarf Police don't find any suspect during the year following a crime, the person who reported said crime becomes the prime suspect.
Caste system
If your dwarf society is structured by a rigid caste system, it could be a crime for a commoner to accuse someone above them in the social hierarchy.
(This is close to the "Blame the victim" solution)
Blame the boss
In a society with strong family values, the head of a family could be held responsible for the actions of all the other members of said family.
In this situation, if someone steals from their own family, their grand-mother, uncle or father could be prosecuted with them, even if they are the victim.
The same logic can apply to clans, guilds, companies, etc.
Someone has to pay
There is nothing the dwarf government dislike more than losing money. If the defendant can't pay the bill, then the plaintiff has to.
For example, if a homeless dwarf A deface the property of dwarf B, is found guilty but can't pay the fine, then dwarf B has to pay it.
Administrative nightmare
The dwarf justice system never doubt the content of an official form.
If the cop who took the deposition mixed up the plaintiff and the defendant's names, the plaintiff will be prosecuted.
You can mix some of these solutions together, and maybe add a bit of xenophobia and incompetence to it.
There are a number of possibilities.
Sadly in the real world there are a lot of cases where women (mostly) are prosecuted for "crimes" when they are the victim. For example reporting a rape but being arrested for having extra-marital sex is something that has actually happened recently, we're not talking ancient history here.
Moving away from that though the simplest way would be to have some sort of generic "aiding a criminal" offense that is far too broad. For example if you left a window open and were robbed you helped the criminal in the offence by leaving the window open, or if a criminal were wounded and you provided first aid (whether knowing he was a criminal or not) then again you would be aiding the criminal.
Along similar lines perhaps "providing finance to criminals" is a crime, but by having money stolen you are providing finance for them and fall under the law.
These are laws for which there is no defense or mitigating circumstances. An example in the real-world would be something like "driving without insurance". If you're caught driving, with no insurance, that's an offense. Because it's not defensible, it's something very easy for the prosecution to process: "Here's the evidence. Prosecution rests".
Combined with joint liability laws, you can wrap the legal system around itself and produce bizarre scenarios.
Example:
Urist is robbed in the night by someone on a crime-spree, and a family heirloom is stolen. He informs the guard, and since the heirloom has distinguishing features, they promise to keep an eye out.
Months later, Urist is at a second-hand jewelry store, and spots his family heirloom for sale. Not wanting to lose it again, he buys it back and then goes to inform the guard (showing them the receipt).
Little does Urist know that "purchase of stolen property" is a strict liability crime: you're guilty even if you didn't know it was stolen (this is to stop criminals who try the old "I didn't steal it. I bought it and didn't know it was stolen" defense). Urist is also arrested for buying his own stolen property (alongside the shopkeeper).
Furthermore, when purchasing stolen property, you are guilty by association of the crimes committed when the property was stolen originally (notionally to prevent criminals from making organized gangs: the courts don't have to sort out exactly who stole what). Urist is now guilty of the theft of everything that was stolen that night, for buying back his own heirloom.
The local Jeweler's guild uses Urist's story as a cautionary tale of purchasing from second-hand stores, rather than guild-approved resellers. They "encourage" the magistrate (secretly, of course) to put forth the harshest possible sentence for Urist, to better illustrate the risks of dealing with third-party suppliers.
You do somewhat need a bit of backstory as to why the legal system is arranged to screw people. In my example, purchase of stolen property is on the books the way it is due to lobbying from various cartels and guilds (who don't like resellers, and hence make "buyer beware" as risky as possible).
This is also aided by a weak police system. If the police don't generally catch criminals, the ones they do catch need to be sent down with relative ease (in that if they can't spare the resources to actually find the criminal, they're not going to spare the resources to gather a large body of evidence and argue in court for 18 months).
An alternative is weak, voter-orientated politicians who pass laws in response to public outrage that are designed to shaft whoever gets caught in the net (again, without regards to common sense).
Since Urist is an retired solider, there are further penalties applied for crimes committed against a "defender of the Mountainhold". These laws are on the books due to public outrage that soldiers would have property stolen while they were away on duty; stealing from the house of a current- or previously serving soldier now carries double the regular penalty.
All of this comes about because of strict liability. His only legal tactic is to claim that it wasn't him who committed the crime (i.e. you're not guilty of driving without insurance if you're not driving). Since he's waved the receipt of him purchasing his own heirloom in front of the guard; however, that won't fly.
The laws should make sense, broadly speaking. It's reasonable to arrest someone dealing in stolen property because it makes it harder for criminals to offload their goods if there are no buyers. It's reasonable to have joint liability for some crimes because otherwise the criminals would simply each claim that someone else did the crime, and they were just there as backup. It's reasonable to have strong penalties for committing crimes against someone defending the homeland from the goblinoid hoards. It's reasonable to have strict liability for most of these things because there's no "reasonable" case where there would be a defense, so why tie up the courts with dealing with the obvious cases of guilt.
You just have to "forget" to make exceptions for the "unreasonable" cases. The laws don't exempt you against committing a crime against yourself; the rest is just paperwork.
If the property values are based on stewardship then not protecting your the stuff in your possession could be seen as a crime against the society.
Letting a heirloom get stolen is a crime against family, Losing a fight or getting mugged is a crime against Dwarf honor etc.
Us humans also like to blame victims for being stupid or not fighting enough.
As was stated in previous answers, this happens in real life. The first case that sprung to mind for me is the case where a "17-year-old faced 10 years in prison and being labeled a 'sex offender' for possessing his own nude selfies".
It boggles the mind that an actual judge who passed the actual bar exam decided that this made sense. So it can happen, but if it happened in fiction it would probably be considered unbelievable. Maybe it would seem convincing in a system that was highly bureaucratic, with lots of litigation. (Kind of like the USA).
A few scenarios inspired by semi-fiction:
According to "Child 44", in Soviet Russia you could be prosecuted for spreading capitalist lies if you were to report pretty much any crime. That is because "there are no crime in heaven", so of course if you were to report one you are spreading lies to undermine the state.
Suite Francais: the mayor of the town was executed because he reported a theft from his house. The Nazi occupiers gave him 48 hours to apprehend the criminal or face the charges himself because, under occupation rules, the mayor is responsible for the actions of all the residents in the town.
Both of these would require the dwarven society to be totalitarian with the gears of state being focussed on suppression. In the first case you can choose to go with idealism (the dwarves really believe they live in heaven) or corruption (the state uses the ideal as a nice excuse to suppress opposition). In the second case there is no pretence - these rules exist to create fear for the sake of control.
Well, luckily for you it's really easy to create such a loophole. And, guess what, you can even use it in a recursive way if it fits in the situation.
Dwarven nation has, among the others, a simple law from the recent past that clearly has been created with the aim to achieve the greater heights of dwarven society. Its scope is to force people to think about the outcome of their actions, to take care of others, to not do bad deeds:
Thou shall be punished for having brought affliction, either intentionally or unintentionally, on one of your brethen.
And it's a real nice law, resuming the spirit of all the other hundreds of laws making up the dwarven legal system, reflecting the hearth of the foundation of the dwarven nation itself (and great achievement of the previous council, pursued for a couple of centuries, carved almost anywhere, etc. etc.)
But it's essentially a law "in spirit", a resume of being a dwarf. Beautiful, enlightening, but in the end everybody think of it as just a direction, not a real law.
Until...a dwarf get caught stealing and reported to authorities.
Until such dwarf get sentenced to jail.
Until...well, guess what? Until that dwarf realize that, by reporting him and having him going to jail, his brethen has actually brought him affliction. Oops...
There's a story in the military here that it's an offense to get a sunburn. The idea is that you'll be charged because you're allowing "government property" to be damaged (you the soldier being the property). While it sounds apocryphal, the military does have weird "catch-all" type laws designed to allow superiors to punish you for pretty much anything they want. The typical example of this is "conduct not becoming a member of the XYZ armed forces." If they can't find a rule or regulation that fits what you've done, that's what you're charged with.
If you were to have your rifle stolen, you'd definitely be charged and punished for that.
I know it's not exactly what you were thinking, but perhaps you could get some inspiration from the idea of it being illegal to allow yourself to be harmed.
How about a law that says:
A false-accuser shall be found guilty of the crime falsely accused.
If a crime is committed against you and you accuse the perpetrator, you may end up found guilty of the crime if you're unable to put together sufficient evidence. More likely if the standard for false-accusation is low.
Have your dwarves come up with laws where practically any interaction with the watchmen can lead to charges, from "obstruction of justice" to "resisting arrest", regardless of the merits of the initial case. That is, there can be charges of "obstruction of justice" even if there was no crime at all, just because somebody irritated the watch. And bleeding on their clean shirts is an assault ...
I doubt you can.
There are laws that I, and I hope most of us, consider as plain stupid. Say, we shouldn't convict anyone (woman, man, or dwarfs alike) for being raped, nor for losing a fair fight, nor for being of the wrong colour, nor for bleeding on a officer's shirt, (as suggested in previous answers) nor ... for a series of as-silly-as-they-get real or fictional laws.
If someone gets convicted according to a criminal law than it is because that someone committed a crime according to that law. We may think, from our culture, that the law is silly or plain stupid; maybe even those who apply it may think it is outdated. Still, one gets convicted because of a crime, not because of being a victim.
Off course, there still may be the chance of justice errors, of corruption, of police abuse, and so on. It happens.
Say that you report a corruption case but in the end you get (wrongly) convicted for defamation. Still, you are not condemned for being the victim of corruption, but for the crime of defamation. It is an error. It does happen.
Protection for your own good. You were beaten and robbed, but your assailants didn't finish you off ... yet.
We presume you are in further danger (reference any number of arguments that you're better off killing an opponent than wounding him, since he can't appear against you in court) so until we arrest the perps, we'd better hold you in our nice secure cells for your own safety...
I'm really sorry about this, especially since we think the perps escaped to [Spain|Argentina|one of Jupiter's moons] so the arrest may take a while, but I'm sure you appreciate it's really for your own good.
Suppose in Dwarvenland, the right to own and carry a sword was protected by the second provision listed in the highest fundamental law of the kingdom. Suppose there was a faction of dwarves in Dwarvenland who strongly objected to this, and attempted to pass laws to restrict the sale and ownership of swords under any possible pretext.
One possibility would be that, whenever a sword is stolen, the rightful owner is to be charged with a crime, either for failing to secure the sword properly, for failing to immediately disclose the theft to law enforcement, or both. This could conceivably have a legitimate crime-prevention purpose (i.e., preventing the proliferation of stolen weaponry on the black market), but could also have a chilling effect, discouraging dwarves from buying and owning the swords they are lawfully entitled to own. What if it was stolen? More significantly, it would cause victims of crimes to be victimized a second time, by the civil authorities.
Possibly not exactly what you're looking for as it's not the same crime, but you have the old story of the robber breaking a window to get into a house, injuring himself with the broken glass, and suing the owner.
Or indeed the person who's attacked defending themselves and (accidentally or otherwise) killing the assailant, accused of not showing due restraint.
Pay for investigation. The police made efforts to investigate the case. Even if unsuccessful, someone has to pay for the work.
Yes, very feasible.
Laws regarding responsibility
Certain positions are subject to certain responsibilities, and one of the ways to ensure people do their due diligence, is to make it illegal not to. You'd also be reluctant to remove such a law, since that opens up for negligence.
Example: If you are responsible for securing some assets (like a bank), then having those assets stolen would mean you broke the law. Of course, stealing is also illegal, but if you had secured the assets properly, the crime of theft wouldn't have been committed. So you are technically to blame for the theft as well.
Poorly structured laws can then deteriorate over time, or have a lot of small amendments made that increase the people covered or the responsibilities of those covered. There can also be constant bickering when trying to fix the law as people are paranoid or greedy, seeing implausible loopholes where there is none.
Example: If the law initially was regarding banks, they had the responsibility of adequate security when they held assets worth more than 1000,- currency. Which was a big sum 50 years ago, but now it's commonplace. Which means, unless you're poor, you are by law responsible for securing your purse.
This reminds me of somewhere where I used to work. If you found a bug in the companies systems you became the person responsible for either fixing it or making sure it got fixed. You can guess the effects...
So, with that in mind.
One day the Dwarven King was angry. You see the backlog of unsolved crimes in his kingdom just seemed to grow and grow. He was a king who cared deeply about appearances. He wanted to make sure there were fewer unsolved crimes.
In fact he made it a metric for the nobles in charge of the justice system, if the backlog wasn't reduced then their heads were on the chopping block.
These nobles in turn had to create laws and rules to improve the situation.
At first they tried hiring more guards. They tried hiring more investigators. But this just uncovered crimes that hadn't even been suspected before. With more guards catching more criminals people became more willing to report crimes to the guards.
This was a disaster! The backlog was longer than ever, the king was losing patience and glancing meaningfully at the headsman who was sharpening his axe in anticipation.
And then the nobles had a stroke of genius.
"Whomsoever doth report a crime is personally responsible for solving the case or making sure it is solved, should the case remain unsolved 1 year hence they shall pay the price"
It was a resounding success! The backlog of unsolved cases started shrinking, the caseloads on guards was dramatically reduced and people almost entirely stopped coming to the king complaining about crimes against them.
Clearly this policy was the best idea ever! The nobles responsible were rewarded generously.
The nobles in charge of some dwarven counties occasionally objected that the system was flawed... but it could clearly be seen that when they changed things back the reported crime rates under their leadership increased dramatically! The backlog of unsolved cases under their leadership also ballooned obscenely. And so those nobles would fall out of favor and lose their power, or even their heads.
Now, centuries later, it's been deeply enshrined in the dwarven legal code.
Insanity defense.
The perpetrator claims the victim drove him insane and therefore the victim is the actual perpetrator, as the one whose witting actions caused the damage.
