So whos fault is it?

[MissileMan]

In Hobbit's description, I agree with Jillian.

I do, however, believe that there are Victim's fault, Partial fault, and no fault at all, I just think Hobbit's examples were poor ones in differentiating the three.

In the instance of rape, the only scenario where I can conceive of a rape victim being at fault is if the foreplay was rough, role playing type scenario then AFTERWARDS she said that she "meant no". That would mean the male would have no way of differentiating between the rough roleplaying and actual rape.... hence, victim's fault.

If there were a pre-agreement to role-play a rape scenario and then AFTER, she said she really meant no...there was no rape.

 

[MissileMan]

Rape is probably a bad issue to illustrate Mr. P.'s point. Let's look at a victim who got hit by a car instead. An innocent bystander on the sidewalk who's paying attention is truly a victim. A drunk guy who jaywalked in the middle of the night on a dark street who gets hit is pretty much to blame for his own actions.

Are we talking about victims of crimes or accidents?

 

[MissileMan]

The other site is focusing on rape too...Seems to be a big issue with the women. :insert sarcasim laugh: ( Disney Similes won't do.)

But, on the rape thing. A woman parks in the un-lit less crowed (I wonder why) back lot of a mall. Comes back to her car and is raped. Was she at fault at all? I say, yes.

If a well dressed man (coat and tie) walks through watts at 2 a.m. and is mugged is he at fault at all? I say, yes.

And I'd say no to both. If not for the actions of the criminals, there wouldn't be victims.

I asked this question in another thread:

If a burglar picks both of the locks on your front door and steals all your stuff, are you partially to blame because you hadn't installed a third lock?

 

[Mr. P]

And I'd say no to both. If not for the actions of the criminals, there wouldn't be victims.

I asked this question in another thread:

If a burglar picks both of the locks on your front door and steals all your stuff, are you partially to blame because you hadn't installed a third lock?

No to both in a perfect world, I agree. But we know better.

The house example isn't relavant to what one does in public. And fault doesn't negate a crime. Not talking crime here, just fault and how much.

 

[dilloduck]

No to both in a perfect world, I agree. But we know better.

The house example isn't relavant to what one does in public. And fault doesn't negate a crime. Not talking crime here, just fault and how much.

If you mean by "fault" that a victim may have somehow ignored warning signs and common sense, I would think that the "victim" should take some responsiblity for whatever consequences that befell them.

 

[Nienna]

I think it can go all three ways. Continuing with the rape example:

Victim's Fault:

She goes to a club wearing next to nothing. She lets herself be picked up by a guy who's obviously horny. After some conversation and dancing, he suggests going back to his place...and leaves no guesses as to what they'll be doing there. When they get there, the foreplay begins and she's enjoying every second of it. Then, when they're only seconds away from the actual 'act,' she backs out. Guy goes ahead anyway. She doesn't really put up a fight. In this case, she basically said she wanted sex about 1000 times, and only said no once, and then at a point in time when the guy was too overrun with hormones to really comprehend. Yeah, the guy should have stopped, but who can honestly say with absolute certainty that they have the willpower to do so in said situation. If she didn't want sex, she should have said so instead of screaming 'screw my brains out' with every action she took.

Partial Victim's Fault:

Same scenario, except she says no during the initial necking. The guy clearly could have stopped, but she set herself up in a very comprimising situation by being at a guy's house alone when he made it perfectly clear that the two of them were there to have sex. With the kind of signals he was sending out, it should be pretty clear to anybody with half a brain that she shouldn't have gone to his house.

Not at all the Victim's Fault:

Scenario starts the same, except the skimpy clothing is irrelevant. She goes to a club, talks to a guy. He seems interested in a little nocturnal activity, but she's not. However, she does get a bit tipsy and asks him for a ride home. He does so, follows her in the house, and rapes her. While there were a couple of mistakes she made (such as getting a ride home alone with a stranger), the rape was in no way, shape, or form her fault. That guy is 100% predator.

Anyway, that's my take. Some might draw the lines in different places, but I think these three extreme examples illustrate about where I stand.

I think this is a very good breakdown. There are times when a victim's actions contribute to the crime, and other times when the "perp" has ALL the blame.

 

[Nienna]

A normal male doesn't force himself on someone unwilling.

Rape is a crime of violence, not sex. The sex is incidental to domination and rage.

And if I wear something that's low cut and shows a lot of cleavage or a skirt that's very short, it doesn't give someone the right to put their hands on me.

The same hormone comes into play in both aggression and sex drive--- testosterone. Not claiming that a man cannot will himself to control his actions beyond his hormones. Of course he can. But, in the first scenario described by Hobbit, in the very heat of passion, when the woman has given permission all along, I think it would get very hazy for a man to distinguish between "aggression" and "finishing the act," if there is no real struggle involved. Meaning, the girl just says, "No," all of a sudden, and doesn't struggle or fight him off.

 

[5stringJeff]

Are we talking about victims of crimes or accidents?

He just said victims, so I suppose both.

As I see it, a victim of an accident can be mostly, if not entirely at fault. The victim of a crime could be partially at fault, but I don't think they could ever be 100% at fault, since the perpetrator performed some illegal action.

 

[Nienna]

He just said victims, so I suppose both.

As I see it, a victim of an accident can be mostly, if not entirely at fault. The victim of a crime could be partially at fault, but I don't think they could ever be 100% at fault, since the perpetrator performed some illegal action.

That's it, spot-on.

 

[5stringJeff]

That's it, spot-on.

 

[Abbey Normal]

The extreme end result of the argument of blaming the rape victim because she dressed sexily or suggestively, is the burqa. Arab men demand it because they believe men simply cannot control themselves, therefore women have to hide their 'goodies'. I'd hate to think Western men feel this way, too.

My take: Women who dress 'like they want it' should not be surprised when they are treated poorly and with disrespect. But rape is a different issue and a woman's dress is no excuse for any unwanted touching. Once things go beyond just dressing to attract attention, to any sexual behavior on her part, things become more murky.

 

[manu1959]

Bullshit. You get to change your mind at any time. He can't take no for an answer, that's on him. By the by, dressing suggestively is no more an invitation for a criminal act than having a nice house and nice possessions makes the victim responsible for a robbery that takes place in his/her home.

Again... garbage. She said no. It means no. Being alone with someone isn't putting oneself in a "compromising position".

They're all the criminal's fault, dude.

how about this....you and i go out to dinner...you invite me back to your house.....you go and change into.... nothing.....walk over undress me ...mount up and finish me off and send me home because you have to get up early for work .... you call me the next day and ask me to have dinner...i tell you i am not that into you.....you claim rape and have me arrested.....the rape kit shows we had sex, but there are no brusises and no evidence of drugs or booze in anyones blood stream .....

the victim is.......................

and who is at fault here?

 

[MissileMan]

how about this....you and i go out to dinner...you invite me back to your house.....you go and change into.... nothing.....walk over undress me ...mount up and finish me off and send me home because you have to get up early for work .... you call me the next day and ask me to have dinner...i tell you i am not that into you.....you claim rape and have me arrested.....the rape kit shows we had sex, but there are no brusises and no evidence of drugs or booze in anyones blood stream .....

the victim is.......................

and who is at fault here?

What you've described is not a rape. With no evidence of a struggle or violence, you wouldn't even be arrested.

 

[Hobbit]

In retrospect, my example wasn't the best. I was just using an example already offered and trying my best to strain my brain for an example of actual rape that can be blamed on the actual victim, and that was the best I could come up with. The idea of being hit by a car was probably the better starting point. However, I still maintain a single 'no' amid cries of 'yes' is not equivalent to jumping a girl in a back alley.

 

[manu1959]

What you've described is not a rape. With no evidence of a struggle or violence, you wouldn't even be arrested.

sorry wrong.....

 

[Annie]

sorry wrong.....

I agree, with the most reliable back up, my brother a deputy chief of police. The accusation is enough for charges.

 

[Mr. P]

Da Judge says she wouldn’t sign an arrest warrant based solely on accusation.

 

[Annie]

Da Judge says she wouldn’t sign an arrest warrant based solely on accusation.

Uh huh. And the district attorney cannot indict a ham sandwhich.

 

[Mr. P]

Uh huh. And the district attorney cannot indict a ham sandwhich.

Of course but I'll guarantee they would need more too.

 

[Annie]

Of course but I'll guarantee they would need more too.

See Duke LaCrosse.