Blaming the victim

[LilyAnn]

Recently while reading news about tragedies I have noticed something. People seem to love blaming the victim. When it comes to rape, people say that it's the victims fault because they wore something provocative. Or recently I read somewhere that it was the victims fault for being gun downed by an officer because he wouldn't but his TOY gun down. How is it their fault? They don't go and ask this to happen. They don't make the offenders assault/kill them.


What are your thoughts on this? Do you think that the victim asked for what happens to them during a crime? Or do you believe that people shouldn't be blaming them?

 

[Shadeh]

ha ikr, some people always complain.
Fun Fact: Did you know that most murder cases end with man-Slaughter?

 

[Flushed]

Regardless of whether the victim is at fault, which, although relevant, I won't delve into, the perpetrator (can't think of a word for anti-victim right now) does deserve at least some blame. It's a decision they make that could've been reversed/stopped, and in most cases, there are many alternatives. Barring stuff like mental conditions, the accused choose to make the decisions they do, and should be accordingly (based on circumstances) held responsible.

I think that so much revolves around the victim's role in the occurrence, but regardless of their guilt, the perpetrator is still responsible. Whether their actions are justified or not, it depends on the situation, but in assigning "neutral guilt", I feel the accused is always, at least partly, "to blame." So to answer the question, I'm not going to go into whether the victim is to blame or not, but rather (assuming the victims are blamed more) the accused should be more scrutinized for their actions as well.

 

[Rezilia]

I always look on the side of the villain first.

I'm not going to automatically say that the victim was to blame, but there often tends to be a reason why the "villain" chose that particular victim - not always, just most of the time.

 

[«Chuckles»]

I agree with Rezilia, but the problem with that is alot of people do that so they use it to their advantage. My english teacher today told us that some pedophiles say that the victim "tempted" them, imo that makes me sick. I believe that sometimes the victim can be at fault but if you did do the crime then you need to pay for it. Man-slaughter is weird because it can be twisted sometimes I read somewhere could be false sorry but a woman killed her husband and it was clear it wasn't man slaughter but she got away with it, probably because she was a woman and they think and some times do get away with it. Then the perpetrator (thanks Flushed) can always play the race/rights/religion card and because our society tries to be equal to everyone they tend to be lenient to those who are not white or are woman, for the latter probably because it is uncommon and stuff. Sorry if I'm wrong or you disagree with some of my points I am not very good at this stuff.

 

[Livewire]

Soooooo the guy walking down the street with a new iPhone deserved to get mugged then, or was somehow at fault for getting assaulted? You stay classy PC.

 

[Kanzler]

I don't think the people who emphasize personal responsibility are victim blaming. Personal responsibility is a very at-the-individual perspective: it's like all things being equal, if you didn't have your iPhone out you might've not been robbed (because crimes can be opportunistic, etc, etc). It's like "forget about the rest of the world for a second, let's just focus on you and your actions and what you could have done differently". Of course you should consider the whole event in its entire context, that goes without saying. But personal responsibility is of a narrow scope, and people who stress that shouldn't be seen as blaming the victim.

 

[Star-Lord]

^ lmao the only personal responsibility that matters it the personal responsibility of the criminal/assailant/whatever.

Soooooo the guy walking down the street with a new iPhone deserved to get mugged then, or was somehow at fault for getting assaulted? You stay classy PC.

mte.

The only way this could be worse is if people start saying that the woman (or man) is somehow personally at fault for getting sexually assaulted.

 

[Kanzler]

^ lmao the only personal responsibility that matters it the personal responsibility of the criminal/assailant/whatever.



mte.

The only way this could be worse is if people start saying that the woman (or man) is somehow personally at fault for getting sexually assaulted.

Hmm, let me give an anecdote.

In February of the next year I hope to go to Mexico. As most of you know, security isn't the best. By that I mean foreigners can get dragged away to an ATM and be asked to cough up their PIN or be beaten until they cough it out. Now, I'd imagine if I was ever to be dragged off and beaten, the assailant is to be blamed for assault and all that. However. All travellers know that violent crime is a problem in certain countries. We also know that it makes good sense to go about as inconspicuously as you can. To the extent that I wasn't conspicuous, I wasn't being responsible to myself. In the case that I do get robbed though, I wouldn't see anybody telling me "you should've been more careful" as blaming me in any sense. I think it's easy for us to feel like somebody has to be blamed in these hot-button issues, but it narrows the discussion and the complexity to the detriment of understanding, imo. Thus, advocating personal responsibility shouldn't be seen as victim blaming unless it is - but that's the crucial point, "unless it is".

I know that any discussion of personal responsibility will always be tied to rape. It's what people think is important, it's always going to be at the forefront of this discussion. For instance, advocating personal responsibility (which usually makes some reference to being safe in a suspicious environment) when it comes to a rape between people who know each other well - of course that would be a difficult case to make, especially that the bonds and trust of friendship have been violated in a major way and so safety precautions don't even have a place - could be reasonably justified as victim blaming. However, we should never generalize, and I hope I've given a good case for why advocating personal responsibility does not /equate/ to victim blaming - even though people refer to it as such often. For me, personal responsibility amounts to victim blaming to the extent that you can't reasonably say that the victim was responsible. Rape? Not so much. Getting robbed in Mexico? I should change out of my suit as soon as I'm done with business.

 

[Synerjee]

Hm... Just going to make this short. I believe it is not the fault of the victim that he or she gets, for example, raped. It should rightfully be the fault of the raper in this case. People should be taught on how to control their 'instincts' and just not let them run wild like a hungry tiger spotting a deer. Humans are not animals; most of them have some sort of moralistic sense, unless they have indeed been brought up in a jungle by animals themselves or the like. "That girl was wearing such provocative clothes, therefore I couldn't resist raping her?" No. None of that.

 

[Bartholomew]

The perpetrator deserves all of the blame for their individual actions. Societal pressures may turn people on to lifestyles that they otherwise wouldn't have, but an individual crime is the perpetrator's fault alone. Victims are not culpable in the slightest for becoming targets. Lacking perpetrators, there would be no targets.

 

[Magic Christmas Lights]

I'm appalled at the large number of people who don't think that the perpetrator is 100% responsible for their actions and outcomes.

 

[Kanzler]

Well, that's a consequence of viewing the world as a zero-sum game - seeing things as either-or. But I do think it's more complex than that.

 

[Bartholomew]

Well, that's a consequence of viewing the world as a zero-sum game - seeing things as either-or. But I do think it's more complex than that.

Well, think about it this way. In the most realistic and practical terms possible, we'd be talking about a court trial with a prosecution and defense (victim vs. perpetrator). Assuming the perpetrator is guilty, what's at stake is whether the perpetrator is punished for the crime or not punished for the crime. What amount of blame the victim or society deserves for their role in the crime is irrelevant. Is the victim or society going to receive a portion of the prison term for being partially at fault? Nope. In reality, the question of who's to blame is a very all-or-nothing problem out of necessity.

It's a disgrace when the victim's role in a crime is considered to make the case that a perpetrator shouldn't be punished. Unfortunately, it still happens on a daily basis.

 

[Esper]

There's a fine line between advocating personal responsibility and victim blaming.

A victim can't be responsible for the mental calculations in the perpetrator's head that include some aspect of the victim. They aren't causing the crime to happen even though they're a part of it as the victim. The victim's actions and choices are part of an equation that they might have no knowledge about. They're filling in X and Y without knowing what the whole equation looks like, or that there even is an equation. It's one thing to walk down a dark alley at night and another to walk down a street in daylight. You could be attacked in either location. We just have an unwritten list of dangerous situations that we'll call a victim (ir)responsible for entering on the assumption that they should know better.

The trouble is what we define as the area in which a person "should know better" and how much we're going to try to curtail people's freedoms on the assumption that what they want to do is "too dangerous".

It's a disgrace when the victim's role in a crime is considered to make the case that a perpetrator shouldn't be punished. Unfortunately, it still happens on a daily basis.

I agree that this is when personal responsibility isn't or shouldn't be really at issue because this is a matter of law and people engaging in criminal activity should only be able to fall back on an argument of personal need to justify their crimes, a.k.a., I was starving and needed to steal for food.

 

[Kanzler]

Well, think about it this way. In the most realistic and practical terms possible, we'd be talking about a court trial with a prosecution and defense (victim vs. perpetrator). Assuming the perpetrator is guilty, what's at stake is whether the perpetrator is punished for the crime or not punished for the crime. What amount of blame the victim or society deserves for their role in the crime is irrelevant. Is the victim or society going to receive a portion of the prison term for being partially at fault? Nope. In reality, the question of who's to blame is a very all-or-nothing problem out of necessity.

It's a disgrace when the victim's role in a crime is considered to make the case that a perpetrator shouldn't be punished. Unfortunately, it still happens on a daily basis.

Sure, this is what matters as a legal issue. Perhaps I am standing on my soapbox right now, but I feel that we should clarify the relationship between personal responsibility and victim blaming. The perpetrator is responsible for his actions, no doubt, and I'm not saying anything to the effect of disagreeing with that. However, it occurs to me that "personal responsibility" is a bit of a taboo in our circles and it shouldn't be so taboo. The way we use certain words affects how we think about a problem, and I think we are reducing this slice of human interaction a bit too much. I believe that there is a place in our discourse for personal responsibility without having us vilify it at every mention as victim blaming. As we understand it, it is unreasonable for the victim to be responsibility to many things, yes? But does that entirely close the door to personal responsibility at all? There is a lot of black-and-whiteness to the discourse right now, but we should be clear about what we are talking about.

 

[Esper]

There is a lot of black-and-whiteness to the discourse right now, but we should be clear about what we are talking about.

Personally, I don't want to open the door of personal responsibility very far because it could then be used to say that rape victims are partially to blame for being attacked so I'm hesitant to stray too far from my general stance that victims aren't responsible for being victims. There are people out there who only wait to get their foot in the door and then they'll rush to impose all kinds of moral (or sometimes legal) codes of conduct on people which, in my view, only reinforce the kind of society in which people feel like they can rape with impunity.

 

[Bartholomew]

If you're going to talk about ultimate responsibility, why stop with the victim? If you want to say a woman gets raped because she wears a shirt skirt, it's also because she's attempting to maintain a social presence in a society that objectifies her body, because social irrelevance is damning and made into a life-or-death matter, etc. Rape is overlooked and not treated seriously enough because it's not a legitimate concern for half the population. I'm aware men get raped, but it's mostly by other men, and a man would be lying if he said he's afraid of getting raped walking alone anywhere.

I just don't see the need to delve into all of that. A crime is the criminal's fault. Social influence is important and there's more we can do as a society to make crime less prevalent, but that decision to commit a crime is the criminal's alone and shouldn't be blamed on anyone else.

 

[Rezilia]

A friend of mine in high school once went with a "friend" of hers to see that "friend"'s grandmother in the nursing home. My friend was wearing a dress, below her waste but above her knees, over there because she had to go to a party later.

Seeing her in that dress, in that way, he managed to get her outside the nursing home and out of view (this was obviously a trap, but whatever). She normally could kick anyone's @$$ - but because she was wearing a dress that hurt her combat ability, he managed to pin her and rape her.

I felt bad for her, sure. I wanted to kill the guy myself... But let's take a look at things:

1) She followed him into an area where no one was looking, of her own free will.

2) She was wearing a provocative dress around in public.

3) Her personality, naturally, was very flirtatious...with everyone. Even me. But still - everyone, male and female. For him to develop feelings (even physical ones) for her, wasn't that rare a thing - and she was probably acting that way in that situation as well, since she did it normally - in public - with everyone.


Did she ask to be raped? No.

Did she set up a situation to where she COULD get raped, even when she had tons of chances and ways to NOT get herself into that situation? Definitely.

 

[Esper]

1) She followed him into an area where no one was looking, of her own free will.

2) She was wearing a provocative dress around in public.

3) Her personality, naturally, was very flirtatious...with everyone. Even me. But still - everyone, male and female. For him to develop feelings (even physical ones) for her, wasn't that rare a thing - and she was probably acting that way in that situation as well, since she did it normally - in public - with everyone.

I don't know what you expect your friend could have done to avoid this short of extreme measures.

1) A nursing home isn't exactly a place that you think will be dangerous. I'm sure anywhere you go there will be areas out of sight: shopping areas, schools, places people work, even your own home.

2) If the person she was with already knew her and was going to do this, then what does it matter what she was wearing? This isn't even one of those cases where people claim that a woman walking alone somewhere is attacked by a stranger for how she dresses. It was someone she already knew.

3) So she should change her personality? She shouldn't trust friends? What exactly should she have done, in your view?