Why don't we admit the fault of victims?

[MysticSang'ha]

And no one is arguing your straw men, either.

Who here is a rape apologist? I know you're not speaking of me, considering that I made it rather clear that rape victims are not at fault for nor deserve their assault, nor are rapists excused or justified. I find the crime to be horrifying. I also find the fact that so many are allowed to get away with it equally horrifying. In fact, I wouldn't mind personally castrating them with dull, rusty instruments, sans anesthesia.

Well, that's you. I have different approaches to justice, but that's another debate for another thread.

You oversimplify the point in an attempt to dismiss it. Allow me to redirect you to my hitchhiking example that you must've missed:

Is it inappropriate to suggest that hitchhiking and/or picking up hitchhikers is a risky, dangerous, and dumb thing to do? Or is it only risky, dangerous, and dumb up to the point that things end in rape, thus absolving the victim of that particular responsibility?

Or, as an other example, drawing attention to oneself in a impoverished neighborhood with a high crime rate by wearing expensive clothing, jewelry, etc. It would still be an inexcusable injustice if you got robbed, of course, but would it really be out of line to suggest that venturing into that neighborhood in such a manner a was very risky, dangerous, and dumb thing to do?

No one deserves to be victimized, nor are they at fault for being a victim. Likewise those that victimize are never excused or justified.
However, the point is that, in some cases, people increase the chance of being victimized by being careless or reckless.

If a stranger pulled up beside you in a car, acting all creepy and suspicious, offering you a ride, wouldn't you consider accepting the ride to be a dumb move? Now let's say the following day that he attempted it again with another woman who actually accepted his offer, with it not ending well for her. You would still consider accepting the ride a dumb move, correct?

You know, myself, Alceste, and Droleifille have argued from the beginning, and will continue to argue, that we believe in risk reduction that actually works. You're arguing something that I've never stated and will never state. I suggest staying away from rape apologists as the biggest reduction in risk.

If anyone is arguing a strawman, FH, it's you. So, if you're going to debate with me, get my arguments correct, please, and stop misrepresenting what I have to say.

 

[Revoltingest]

You know, myself, Alceste, and Droleifille have argued from the beginning, and will continue to argue, that we believe in risk reduction that actually works.

Ahem....I've argued the same all along in multiple threads, but it was called "blaming the victim".
I must be channeling Rodney Dangerfield.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Ahem....I've argued the same all along in multiple threads, but it was called "blaming the victim".
I must be channeling Rodney Dangerfield.

Where I have found us disagreeing is the methods of risk reduction. You and others have chosen to focus mostly on women being careful at frat parties, women not being promiscuous, etc. And I find those situations marginal up to the 15% risk reduction rate.

If I focus on how to reduce the risk for the majority of rape cases (such as not getting into relationships with rape apologists), I've been accused of not caring at all about risk reduction. That I'm blind, dismissive, and naive about rape prevention and that my views are harmful.

So excuse me....but I think I get first dibs on Rodney D there.

Perhaps we should cry in our beer together.

 

[oldbadger]

When someone opens up a shop and fills it with all sorts of goodies, are they asking for thieves to come an steal from them?

They've opened the doors, right? So is that an invitation to a thief to come and steal??

Yes, it can be.

Retailers who stack shelves high with expensive and desirable products, taking no real interest in secure-sensible aisle layouts, reducing staff on sales floors to a mere nothing (a 100,000 sq. ft store with only one sales assistant floor-walking)...... etc...... are considered to be grossly irresponsible by Police Constabularies and legislators.

As a result of this gross retailer (and other) stupidity, the power of stores to arrest thieves was reduced in 2003 with the introduction of a section in the Police and Serious Crime Act which appeared in 2005.

National sized Retailers are being put under increasing pressure to use more integrity in the way in which they display products to the public, and reduce the totally unnecessary (crime) provocation which is increased alongside their incentives to shoppers to touch, pick up and buy.

Not only are people unfairly tempted into crime, but shoppers are tempted into higher levels of debt. This is the opinion of the authorities, debt clubs, social services et al.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where I have found us disagreeing is the methods of risk reduction. You and others have chosen to focus mostly on women being careful at frat parties, women not being promiscuous, etc. And I find those situations marginal up to the 15% risk reduction rate.

And so my example is unworthy of attention? Instead, the better response would be to introduce more circumstances & additional methods of risk reduction. I don't have all the answers, so subsequent posts could build upon each other rather than being at odds. To find disagreement where there is none serves no one. (OK, some posters here like that.)
No, I sense tergiversation at work here. Yeah, I said it.

If I focus on how to reduce the risk for the majority of rape cases (such as not getting into relationships with rape apologists), I've been accused of not caring at all about risk reduction. That I'm blind, dismissive, and naive about rape prevention and that my views are harmful. So excuse me....but I think I get first dibs on Rodney D there.

Accurate inferences are often lost in the fog of vigorous debate.

Perhaps we should cry in our beer together.

No, we both put on our big girl pants & drink the beer!
(And no, I won't be sending pix.)

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes, it can be.

Retailers who stack shelves high with expensive and desirable products, taking no real interest in secure-sensible aisle layouts, reducing staff on sales floors to a mere nothing (a 100,000 sq. ft store with only one sales assistant floor-walking)...... etc...... are considered to be grossly irresponsible by Police Constabularies and legislators.

As a result of this gross retailer (and other) stupidity, the power of stores to arrest thieves was reduced in 2003 with the introduction of a section in the Police and Serious Crime Act which appeared in 2005.

National sized Retailers are being put under increasing pressure to use more integrity in the way in which they display products to the public, and reduce the totally unnecessary (crime) provocation which is increased alongside their incentives to shoppers to touch, pick up and buy.

Not only are people unfairly tempted into crime, but shoppers are tempted into higher levels of debt. This is the opinions of the authorities, debt clubs, social services et al.

When I visited Mecca, the thing that stood out the most about it for me was that many shops never closed their doors, even when the shopkeepers left them at night. It is a normal thing to see there, too, and people are so used to it that nobody seems to question whether the owners of those shops would be responsible if the shops got robbed.

I think that the main issue is that we are so used to the relative pervasiveness of certain crimes that we may have become somewhat desensitized to them now. People should never have to worry about getting robbed, but since humans are and will probably always be imperfect, we have to find ways to deal with robberies and reduce the risks thereof. Embracing the effects of the imperfection as something that the victim is responsible for being subjected to due to doing certain things, however, doesn't seem to me to be helpful at all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why should any blame be placed on the victim? Yes there are taking precautions, but if someone can't keep their hands, genitals, weapons, or other things away from others it is not the victims fault for the perpetrators lack of self-control.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

And so my example is unworthy of attention? Instead, the better response would be to introduce more circumstances & additional methods of risk reduction. I don't have all the answers, so subsequent posts could build upon each other rather than being at odds. To find disagreement where there is none serves no one. (OK, some posters here like that.)
No, I sense tergiversation at work here. Yeah, I said it.

Accurate inferences are often lost in the fog of vigorous debate.

No, we both put on our big girl pants & drink the beer!
(And no, I won't be sending pix.)

Unworthy of attention? Nah. I felt I addressed what I felt it's ineffectiveness several times. As far as I can tell, it's been given a lot of attention.

I'll be wearing my gaucho pants when we meet for that beer.

 

[Revoltingest]

When I visited Mecca, the thing that stood out the most about it for me was that many shops never closed their doors, even when the shopkeepers left them at night. It is a normal thing to see there, too, and people are so used to it that nobody seems to question whether the owners of those shops would be responsible if the shops got robbed.

I think that the main issue is that we are so used to the relative pervasiveness of certain crimes that we may have become somewhat desensitized to them now. People should never have to worry about getting robbed, but since humans are and will probably always be imperfect, we have to find ways to deal with robberies and reduce the risks thereof. Embracing the effects of the imperfection as something that the victim is responsible for being subjected to due to doing certain things, however, doesn't seem to me to be helpful at all.

If I read your post correctly, I need to pose an analogy:
There are drunk & violent drivers on the road.
There should not be, but there they are anyway.
I shouldn't have to accommodate them by wearing a helmet or carrying ID
in case they hit & injure me, because their assault is their fault, not mine.
Questions:
- Am I wrong to wear a helmet in order to reduce the risk of brain injury
or even death (because I might be killed despite my precaution)?
- I've advised other cyclists to wear helmets when they bike, so am I blaming the victim?
- People who die from being hit by drunks are a small percentage of deaths,
so is this too statistically insignificant to warrant taking precautions?

I pose this particular one cuz I was once run down by a drunk driver who told the cops
he tried to kill me. My helmet came in quit handy. It's a vivid memory to be airborne.
I'm also glad to have needed only an orthopedist, & not a neurologist or mortician.
My bike was toast though.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Why should any blame be placed on the victim? Yes there are taking precautions, but if someone can't keep their hands, genitals, weapons, or other things away from others it is not the victims fault for the perpetrators lack of self-control.

I think Curious George has offered a way to understand advocates of victims taking responsibility....to which I understand as a hope of empowering people from becoming victims. I got from his posts that it's a means of finding a way to control a situation from becoming harmful to potential victims.

The heart of their arguments are in the right place. But I still think that the rhetoric used is ineffective in regards to how they are coming across. One can try to be dispassionate and rational, but it can come across as cold....and in the worst cases, cruel. I'm all for empowering people. But to suggest people "taking responsibility" in these cases of violent assault is poor choice of words. Some folks here are understanding that it's not the best way to come across.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If I read your post correctly, I need to pose an analogy:
There are drunk & violent drivers on the road.
There should not be, but there they are anyway.
I shouldn't have to accommodate them by wearing a helmet or carrying ID
in case they hit & injure me, because their assault is their fault, not mine.

Bear in mind that what I mean when I say that people shouldn't have to accommodate criminals' actions is that, in an ideal society, people wouldn't need to do that. Such society doesn't exist, obviously, but my point is that victims aren't responsible at all for crimes if they don't accommodate imperfection (of which there are varying degrees); the criminals are.

Questions:
- Am I wrong to wear a helmet in order to reduce the risk of brain injury
or even death (because I might be killed despite my precaution)?

No, but I think it would be wrong for anyone to blame you if you got injured or killed in a (deliberate, since that's the closest equivalent to victimization I can see in this hypothetical) crash while not wearing a helmet.

- I've advised other cyclists to wear helmets when they bike, so am I blaming the victim?

No, but telling them that they were partially at fault for not wearing helmets if someone deliberately crashed into them would probably be blaming the victim.

- People who die from being hit by drunks are a small percentage of deaths,
so is this too statistically insignificant to warrant taking precautions?

I guess that depends on whether one wants to take precautions against statistically small risks. It's possible to die from overdosing on water, but that's not really something I worry about often or actively take precautions against when I drink water.

I pose this analogy because I was once run down by a drunk driver who told the cops he tried to kill me. My helmet came in quit handy. It's a vivid memory to be airborne.

I'm glad you survived that, but I wouldn't have said you were at fault if you hadn't worn the helmet.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think Curious George has offered a way to understand advocates of victims taking responsibility....to which I understand as a hope of empowering people from becoming victims. I got from his posts that it's a means of finding a way to control a situation from becoming harmful to potential victims.

The heart of their arguments are in the right place. But I still think that the rhetoric used is ineffective in regards to how they are coming across. One can try to be dispassionate and rational, but it can come across as cold....and in the worst cases, cruel. I'm all for empowering people. But to suggest people "taking responsibility" in these cases of violent assault is poor choice of words. Some folks here are understanding that it's not the best way to come across.

I've noticed the "taking responsibility" crowd, more or less, is the same "taking responsibility" crowd that tells poor people they just need to try and work harder. Maybe you never walk outside alone in the dark through alleys and you always have a can of mace, but even if you don't, someone needs to explain how the victim is at fault when the perpetrator is clearly the one who needs some of that "personal accountability and responsibility."

 

[oldbadger]

When I visited Mecca, the thing that stood out the most about it for me was that many shops never closed their doors, even when the shopkeepers left them at night. It is a normal thing to see there, too, and people are so used to it that nobody seems to question whether the owners of those shops would be responsible if the shops got robbed.

Yes....... this is a very interesting point. Crime prevention and risk assessment evaluations alter massively with the cultures, laws, court sentences etc etc .

It is amazing how the conduct of people can change when they visit another country which differs significantly in culture, laws etc... to their own. I will not name countries but the incidence of shop-theft arrests amongst certain visiting nationalities showed this to me clearly. (I had contact with hundreds of store detectives all over Britain). So to achieve the same conditions as in , say, Mecca, it would be necessary to match and copy everything about Mecca, it's laws and it's people.

By the way, (on the side of the debate, just for interest) the best and most outstandingly good behaviour amongst visiting minors to Britain was shown by Japanese children. This observed by me over, say, a twenty year period, which could be totally at odds with their behaviour habits at home.... maybe? (No Japanese child was arrested in at least twenty years on feedback by more than a thousand ops. Full credit to them. However, the conduct of visiting children and adults from an adjacent country was of the worst!!)

I think that the main issue is that we are so used to the relative pervasiveness of certain crimes that we may have become somewhat desensitized to them now. People should never have to worry about getting robbed, but since humans are and will probably always be imperfect, we have to find ways to deal with robberies and reduce the risks thereof. Embracing the effects of the imperfection as something that the victim is responsible for being subjected to due to doing certain things, however, doesn't seem to me to be helpful at all.

In Britain we have crime prevention initiatives. These are delivered through government advertisements, travelling police trainers, local crime prevention officers, magazine articles, television programmes etc. and the public take interest in all of them and talk about them, whether they focus upon vehicle, home, IT or 'whatever' security. Some initiatives have entered our oral-tradition, even.

But a rape or sex-assault crime prevention delivery would need much more careful presentation. Indeed, we don't see enough training deliveries about this type of crime, exactly because of feelings and responses as shown on this and other threads.

It's handled differently. Instead of telling people to dress in a certain way, walk a certain route, etc, television programmes are produced which explain crime histories, which get high viewing ratings, and these show actors imitating what victims dressed in, how they walked, what they drank etc and then show (partial) scenes of the crime. So..... this might attract criticism from some viewers, but not many because such programmes are popular and have run for years. And so, slowly, common ideas have been circulated to the public, free of attack by (mostly) anyone.

I wrote for our national security magazine for 15 years, so I'll have to be the source for this info.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've noticed the "taking responsibility" crowd, more or less, is the same "taking responsibility" crowd that tells poor people they just need to try and work harder. Maybe you never walk outside alone in the dark through alleys and you always have a can of mace, but even if you don't, someone needs to explain how the victim is at fault when the perpetrator is clearly the one who needs some of that "personal accountability and responsibility."

Straw man. Who here claims the victim is at fault?
Anyway, this is a rehash of something which appears to be settled.
Reasonable risk management which is efficacious is worth doing.
It just took forever to find language allowing us to realize we agree on this.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I've noticed the "taking responsibility" crowd, more or less, is the same "taking responsibility" crowd that tells poor people they just need to try and work harder. Maybe you never walk outside alone in the dark through alleys and you always have a can of mace, but even if you don't, someone needs to explain how the victim is at fault when the perpetrator is clearly the one who needs some of that "personal accountability and responsibility."

Oh, personally, you and I are on the exact same page here. Maybe my arm got tired with holding the proverbial frying pan up to people's heads (No, I'm not advocating violence here, just a proverbial frying pan, just to be clear that I'm not a nasty hateful feminist). Or maybe because it's late and I'm enjoying the silence at the studio tonight to where I'm not feeling as feisty. I dunno. But here's my understanding of each side...

The term "taking responsibility" is loaded, big time. It's usually said as a form of discipline to children when they've realized they've done something wrong, and part of the punishment is to first own up to the wrongdoing, and then to make reparations. The language then begins to sound as if somebody is telling a victim to take responsibility for being attacked, that it's a parental admonishment to a bad child for spilling the milk on the floor, and they need to clean up the mess.

Which is an ineffective and destructive way of approaching a victim or a potential victim.

I remember when Adam Walsh was abducted and murdered, and my mother was enormously afraid of me taking off on my bike when I wanted to or exploring in the woods. She often times would tell me to make sure she knew where I was at all times, and then she would tell me how to kick an abductor and to scream as loud as I could if I was being kidnapped. Was she being responsible? Or paranoid? Was she reacting to the news story, or was she raising me according to what are reasonable risks of harm coming my way?

My own little tangent....nowadays, people bemoan helicopter parents for hovering around their kids worried how they might get hurt. Parents can't catch a break. Anyway...

Telling me that I need to take responsibility as a child from getting kidnapped would not have come across as encouraging or empowering....it comes across as punishing language. And the term typically DOES come from a disappointed authority figure using it toward children hoping they'll "learn their lesson." My mother never used that language toward me with her intent on keeping me safe. It was simply do this, not that, and scream really loud.

Yeah, it's late. I'm beginning to ramble.

 

[oldbadger]

No, but I think it would be wrong for anyone to blame you if you got injured or killed in a (deliberate, since that's the closest equivalent to victimization I can see in this hypothetical) crash while not wearing a helmet.

No, but telling them that they were partially at fault for not wearing helmets if someone deliberately crashed into them would probably be blaming the victim.

I don't know about anywhere else, but in Britain this is exactly what will happen...... levels of responsibility will be placed upon certain victims, and here is one example:-

Dear Mr Wenlock, we are Mr Harris's insurance company. We are sad to learn that Mr Harris drove his vehicle, head on, into yours. We understand that he was five times over the alcohol legal limit, and that high traces of hallucinogens in his system. Your medical report shows that your brain injuries are severe. However, our responsibility for your future health and care costs is significantly reduced because at the time of the accident you were not wearing your seat belt, which is, of course, an offence against..... blah blah

I'll bet that this is a similar situation in most western countries.

 

[Curious George]

That's why I raised the question earlier about how belief in free will or lack thereof plays into our perspectives on this topic. I think part of the reason I'm not getting through to folks like Kashmir is that it's difficult to compute the angle I'm coming from. But hey, I have difficulty computing the free will angle, so... heh.

I think another thing that is conflating people's thinking about this are notions of crime and punishments for them. Maybe I should have said something about that in the OP, but by recognizing how targets contribute to a situation, in no way do I mean to suggest they should be punished, held responsible, or blamed in any formal, legal fashion. I disagree with "justice" systems that revolve around punishment in general. Not just because it makes no sense from a deterministic point of view, but because punishment is demonstrably ineffectual compared to, say, reinforcement or reform. But that might be another tangent.

While cooperation has logically evolved, there will always be freeriders who take advantage or do not play by the rules. The answer is not always reinforcement and reform.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Straw man. Who here claims the victim is at fault?
Anyway, this is a rehash of something which appears to be settled.
Reasonable risk management which is efficacious is worth doing.
It just took forever to find language allowing us to realize we agree on this.

The thread itself is asking why we don't blame the victims, I was stating that even while taking precautions a victim should still not be blamed because the perpetrator is the one who is irresponsible, and now we go to a straw man? I find nothing straw-man like about placing all blame on a pick-pocket who couldn't keep his hands to himself, a thug who attacks people, or a rapist that can't keep his own penis in his own pants (even if the girl was wearing wearing hardly any clothes at all or something that was just right up the rapists fantasy isle).

 

[Curious George]

The thread itself is asking why we don't blame the victims, I was stating that even while taking precautions a victim should still not be blamed because the perpetrator is the one who is irresponsible, and now we go to a straw man? I find nothing straw-man like about placing all blame on a pick-pocket who couldn't keep his hands to himself, a thug who attacks people, or a rapist that can't keep his own penis in his own pants (even if the girl was wearing wearing hardly any clothes at all or something that was just right up the rapists fantasy isle).

Or a rapist that couldn't keep any of her lips in check.

 

[Bunyip]

If the question was re-phrased as; How much could an individual reduce the probability of being raped, robbed or beaten by changing the way that they behave.

The answer would be; Quite a lot.

9/10ths of personal safety and security is down to how you interact with the world, not how tough you are.