Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on Jun 8, 2016 11:45:54 GMT -5
They shouldn't be asking about her personal life at all. It should have just been figuring out if the rape had occurred and that's it...
It doesn't even matter if she's been known to cheat or sleep around. It doesn't matter. The point in the court case should be to clarify this was a rape and what the charges should be for this rape. Not to try to discredit her and make it seem as if she was "asking for it," or "deserved it"
It doesn't matter what she was wearing. It doesn't matter if she's cheated on her boyfriend. (I don't condone cheating but it still shouldn't be part of the case.) And people saying the boy is having a hard time irritate me. I don't care if he's having a hard time...
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,374
|
Post by Tiny on Jun 8, 2016 11:47:02 GMT -5
Just cause I'm feeling funky tonight... What if instead this was a case of a drunken teen driver who hit another car/pedestrian and killed someone (or maimed them?)? It seems in most of the published cases the "white privilege" teens who kill/maim other people don't get prison time. And future employability never seems to come up. Perhaps this strange twist of justice is why the guy will be appealing. www.madd.org/laws/law-overview/Vehicular_Homicide_Overview.pdfThis by no means indicate that I think this guy has received too harsh a punishment. Let's not forget if the two passers bye had not 'seen something and said something' this guy would be walking free and clear and perhaps even proudly sharing the story of his 'special' experience with his friends. While the woman would be left to wonder what happened... I think this is the tip of an iceberg. I bet there are plenty of guys reading/watching this and thanking their lucky stars there was no one around when they had their '20 minutes of action'. I doubt fear of the law will stop this from happening. I totally agree with tiny's points. Is this worse than vehicular homicide? No way. We are not allowed to blame the victim, but if the victim is so wasted they do not remember it, that is a big problem. I have both daughters and sons, and I give them a similar message. If you put yourself in a bad situation, bad things can happen. If a young man is walking down the street at 2am in a bad part of town with money hanging out of his wallet and gets robbed, we don't say he deserved it, but we say "boy that was stupid of him". So if a girl gets so drunk and gets assaulted, we shouldn't blame her for the crime, but we should say "boy that was stupid of her". I tell all my kids to avoid putting themselves in bad situations, drinking so much that they do stupid things, which would include making one stupid decision like getting behind the wheel when they are not supposed to. Don't do anything stupid, or don't let something stupid happen to you. And BTW I will freely admit to my kids that when I was in college, there were times that drank enough to not remember what happened. Nothing bad ever happened that I know of. But you are STILL blaming the victim - you are blaming them for being 'stupid' which implies they will get what they deserve.
By the same token we can blame the rapist for being stupid enough to get caught. If he had been a faster talker (would have gotten the two passer byes to believe he had good intentions) OR a faster runner (escaped the two passer byes) - he wouldn''t be looking at 6 months of jail time and being on the sex offender register.
It also implies that I can walk past someone getting robbed or assaulted and just think "boy, that sure is stupid of that person for getting robbed/assaulted" it's not my problem. It's THEIR problem for having been stupid.
Do you see how BLAME is still being placed?
I'm NOT saying it isn't wise to consul your children about the consequences of their actions and about safety - but if you are telling them that if something BAD happens to them, something beyond their control -- it's because they were stupid or rather maybe not thinking about the consequences of their actions - you are still BLAMING them - it's still their fault something bad happened.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 8, 2016 11:48:53 GMT -5
I'm going to regret this... but here goes. Nobody in this thread has said that the victim is in any way responsible for what happened to her. The rape was 100% the fault of the person who committed it. Are we clear on that? Did I leave any room for interpretation with that statement? Ok we can move on to the next sentence, now. All of that being said and meant, FFS take actions to protect yourself and don't get pass out drunk (without at the very least having a support network around you). No I'm not blaming the victim, the rapist doesn't get a pass from me because she was drunk, he should be prosecuted and sentenced to the fullest extent without mercy. I actually totally agree with you. The rapist is 100% at fault and we should all take basic precautions to protect ourselves. My issue is that when it comes to rape, the focus always seems to be on the lack of precautions on the part of the victim and it seems to be used as a red herring and way to lessen the blame of the rapist. It's so common that we don't even think about it. But every single time one of these rapes happen, we're unable to talk about it without examining what the victim did or didn't do. That just doesn't happen with the same frequency in other crimes. We don't minutely examine what neighborhood the person who was carjacked was driving through the way we talk about how dumb it is to get drunk at a frat party. And no matter how many times we say it or ways we say it, the very fact that we all spend so much time talking about what the victim did or didn't do compared to talking about the crime itself implies we think the victim's actions are as important or even more important than the attacker's choices.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 15:22:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2016 11:50:12 GMT -5
i'm guessing that wasn't at the trial? During depositions maybe? I don't know... someone else? ...
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,331
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 8, 2016 11:50:20 GMT -5
I remember in the Kobe Bryant case they tested her underwear to show that she had had sex with other men.
WTF should that matter? Just because she said yes to a different guy doesn't mean she gave consent to Bryant.
The implication is that if you are willing to "give away the milk for free" to other men then you obviously could not have been raped by this guy. Only pure chaste women who don't do stupid things get raped. Dumb irresponsible women claim they were raped to cover up they are sluts.
Can you imagine how stupid it would sound if a cop questioned you on how many wallets did you carry with you today before this one got stolen?
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 8, 2016 11:50:47 GMT -5
I'm going to regret this... but here goes. Nobody in this thread has said that the victim is in any way responsible for what happened to her. The rape was 100% the fault of the person who committed it. Are we clear on that? Did I leave any room for interpretation with that statement? Ok we can move on to the next sentence, now. All of that being said and meant, FFS take actions to protect yourself and don't get pass out drunk (without at the very least having a support network around you). No I'm not blaming the victim, the rapist doesn't get a pass from me because she was drunk, he should be prosecuted and sentenced to the fullest extent without mercy. I actually totally agree with you. The rapist is 100% at fault and we should all take basic precautions to protect ourselves. My issue is that when it comes to rape, the focus always seems to be on the lack of precautions on the part of the victim and it seems to be used as a red herring and way to lessen the blame of the rapist. It's so common that we don't even think about it. But every single time one of these rapes happen, we're unable to talk about it without examining what the victim did or didn't do. That just doesn't happen with the same frequency in other crimes. We don't minutely examine what neighborhood the person who was carjacked was driving through the way we talk about how dumb it is to get drunk at a frat party. And no matter how many times we say it or ways we say it, the very fact that we all spend so much time talking about what the victim did or didn't do compared to talking about the crime itself implies we think the victim's actions are as important or even more important than the attacker's choices. *POTD*
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jun 8, 2016 11:51:35 GMT -5
I disagree. We know many rapes happen between two people that know each other. So compare that to a car theft between two people that know each other. Did you previously allow the defendant to drive your car? Yes Did you leave the keys on the counter like you always do? Yes Did you tell the defendant not to drive your car this time? No, but I was asleep so I could not say no. You cliam you were asleep but weren't yu texting just five minutes before? Yes but then I fell right asleep. Im not lying. The defandt took my car without asking. It is the same issue of trying to prove intent and consent. But obviously very different because one is a car and one is a person. Yes, it definitely is more complicated in the cases where the victim and defendant know each other and have had a relationship that involved sex prior to the alleged rape. And it would be relevant to ask if the two had prior relations. I still don't see that what the woman was wearing was relevant, though... and again, she will be asked that. Just like she will be asked if she has sex with other people an in what situations - again, irrelevant and implying she's a "slut". The case cited in the OP, though is not remotely one of these confusing, complicated boyfriend/girlfriend situations or even a possible date rape. These two were not on a date, and in fact had never met before that night. Their first "meeting" was at the party where both were apparently drunk. She was so drunk she was unconscious and could not be wakened - even though the attack was physically traumatic and left her with serious injuries - or for hours after she was rescued. unfortunately the defense is going to do everything they can to prove that it was consensual sex. (assuming that the defendant admit to having sex with the victim). What was she wearing, did she touch his arm, did she kiss him, did she have a few drinks, did she laugh at his jokes, did she like to have lots of sex with lots of guys... etc, etc, it all goes to make a case that she consented. It is not right, but I don't know the answer to how to prevent it. getting convicted of rape certainly isn't good for a guy, especially if he is innocent, so a guy needs to be able to defend himself. How do you make it equitable for both parties? I don't know.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 8, 2016 11:53:36 GMT -5
I know the moderators don't like us to post complete articles here, but if they will grant me this one indulgence as to not shorten the article it would be appreciated. I am posting the entire article's letter as it is tough to access the writer's blog as so many people are accessing it to read the letter. The letter is written by a father and pastor to the father of the convicted rapist: To Brock Turner’s Father, From Another Father Dear Mr. Turner,
I’ve read your letter to the judge on behalf of your son Brock, asking for leniency in his rape conviction.
I need you to understand something, and I say this as a father who dearly loves my son as much as you must love yours:
Brock is not the victim here. His victim is the victim. She is the wounded one. He is the damager.
If his life has been “deeply altered” it is because he has horribly altered another human being; because he made a reprehensible choice to take advantage of someone for his own pleasure. This young woman will be dealing with this for far longer than the embarrassingly short six months your son is being penalized. She will endure the unthinkable trauma of his “20 minutes of action” for the duration of her lifetime, and the fact that you seem unaware of this fact is exactly why we have a problem.
This is why young men continue to rape women. This is why so many men believe that they can do whatever they please to a woman’s body without accountability. This is the reason so many victims of sexual assault never step forward. This is why white privilege is real and insidious and usually those with it are oblivious to it.
I understand you trying to humanize your son in your letter; talking to the judge about his favorite snacks and swim practice and about the memories that are sweet for you as his father—but to be honest I don’t give a damn and if his victim was your daughter I’m quite sure you wouldn’t either.
I imagine this young woman had favorite snacks and sports too, and parents who had wonderful plans for her that didn’t include this nightmare.
There is no scenario where your son should be the sympathetic figure here. He is the assailant. He is the rapist. I can’t imagine as a father how gut wrenching such a reality is for you, but it is still true.
Brock has to register as a sex offender because he sexually assaulted an incapacitated young woman. This is why we have such requirements; because one vile act against another human being is one too many, because we don’t get a do-over when we do unspeakable things, because people need to be protected with knowledge of others in their midst who have failed so egregiously at respecting another person’s basic dignity.
The idea that your son has never violated another woman next to a dumpster before isn’t a credit to his character. We don’t get kudos for only raping one person in our lifetime. I don’t believe your son is a monster but he acted like one and that needs to be accounted for. To be sure, this decision is not the sum total of Brock’s life, but it is an important part of the equation and it matters deeply.
And to be clear, Mr. Turner,”alcohol and sexual promiscuity” are not the story here. The story here, is that young men have choices to make and these choices define them, even if those choices are made when temptation is great and opportunity is abundant. In fact, our humanity is most expressed when faced with such things, we choose integrity and decency; when we abstain from doing what is easy but wrong.
We as parents don’t control our children. Most parents understand this. Despite our best efforts to the contrary, they fail and fall and do things we’d never consent to. I certainly hope this is such an occasion, though it is not coming across that way in your letter. It feels like you want more sympathy and goodwill toward your son than you want for the survivor of his crime, and that’s simply not good enough for her or for those young men and women watching.
Here is her story.
You love your son and you should. But love him enough to teach him to own the terrible decisions he’s made, to pay the debt to society as prescribed, and then to find a redemptive path to walk, doing the great work in the world that you say he will.
For now though, as one father to another: help us teach our children to do better—by letting them see us do better.
The link to the blog: John Pavloich Stuff That Needs To Be Said
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 8, 2016 11:54:03 GMT -5
I totally agree with tiny's points. Is this worse than vehicular homicide? No way. We are not allowed to blame the victim, but if the victim is so wasted they do not remember it, that is a big problem. I have both daughters and sons, and I give them a similar message. If you put yourself in a bad situation, bad things can happen. If a young man is walking down the street at 2am in a bad part of town with money hanging out of his wallet and gets robbed, we don't say he deserved it, but we say "boy that was stupid of him". So if a girl gets so drunk and gets assaulted, we shouldn't blame her for the crime, but we should say "boy that was stupid of her". I tell all my kids to avoid putting themselves in bad situations, drinking so much that they do stupid things, which would include making one stupid decision like getting behind the wheel when they are not supposed to. Don't do anything stupid, or don't let something stupid happen to you. And BTW I will freely admit to my kids that when I was in college, there were times that drank enough to not remember what happened. Nothing bad ever happened that I know of. But you are STILL blaming the victim - you are blaming them for being 'stupid' which implies they will get what they deserve.
By the same token we can blame the rapist for being stupid enough to get caught. If he had been a faster talker (would have gotten the two passer byes to believe he had good intentions) OR a faster runner (escaped the two passer byes) - he wouldn''t be looking at 6 months of jail time and being on the sex offender register.
It also implies that I can walk past someone getting robbed or assaulted and just think "boy, that sure is stupid of that person for getting robbed/assaulted" it's not my problem. It's THEIR problem for having been stupid.
Do you see how BLAME is still being placed?
I'm NOT saying it isn't wise to consul your children about the consequences of their actions and about safety - but if you are telling them that if something BAD happens to them, something beyond their control -- it's because they were stupid or rather maybe not thinking about the consequences of their actions - you are still BLAMING them - it's still their fault something bad happened.
But it wasn't actually beyond her control. Again, I'm not blaming her but lets be honest. If she wasn't passed out behind a dumpster she wouldn't have been easy pickings for a rapist. He raped her and he is totally wrong. But she made herself vulnerable.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on Jun 8, 2016 12:00:01 GMT -5
But you are STILL blaming the victim - you are blaming them for being 'stupid' which implies they will get what they deserve.
By the same token we can blame the rapist for being stupid enough to get caught. If he had been a faster talker (would have gotten the two passer byes to believe he had good intentions) OR a faster runner (escaped the two passer byes) - he wouldn''t be looking at 6 months of jail time and being on the sex offender register.
It also implies that I can walk past someone getting robbed or assaulted and just think "boy, that sure is stupid of that person for getting robbed/assaulted" it's not my problem. It's THEIR problem for having been stupid.
Do you see how BLAME is still being placed?
I'm NOT saying it isn't wise to consul your children about the consequences of their actions and about safety - but if you are telling them that if something BAD happens to them, something beyond their control -- it's because they were stupid or rather maybe not thinking about the consequences of their actions - you are still BLAMING them - it's still their fault something bad happened.
But it wasn't actually beyond her control. Again, I'm not blaming her but lets be honest. If she wasn't passed out behind a dumpster she wouldn't have been easy pickings for a rapist. He raped her and he is totally wrong. But she made herself vulnerable.Actually yes...this was you blaming her.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jun 8, 2016 12:01:49 GMT -5
My issue with these threads is that the statement is always "Of course the rapist is at fault... BUT" and then a laundry list of what the victim could/should have done. It's no different from prefacing something with "not to be racist, but..." Plenty of women who were "being careful" are still sexually assaulted or raped. So maybe the focus shouldn't be on being careful/staying sober/whatever else women should be doing but the actions of the people actually doing the raping. Perhaps the message should be for men (or frat boys) that purposely disguising the taste of alcohol in order to get women drunker than they expect (for what purpose? is there ever a good one?) is a dangerous game.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on Jun 8, 2016 12:02:16 GMT -5
And in a grand schemes of things rapes happen too often to people that aren't passed out as well. To people in sweaters and sweat pants. And I honestly, honestly believe this isn't the first time he's probably thrown himself at a girl like this.
Drunk or not. Also to blame things on being drunk is pitiful. There are people out there drunk as horseradish that will stop a rape if they see it knowing it's not okay.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,374
|
Post by Tiny on Jun 8, 2016 12:03:23 GMT -5
I'm going to regret this... but here goes. Nobody in this thread has said that the victim is in any way responsible for what happened to her. The rape was 100% the fault of the person who committed it. Are we clear on that? Did I leave any room for interpretation with that statement? Ok we can move on to the next sentence, now. All of that being said and meant, FFS take actions to protect yourself and don't get pass out drunk (without at the very least having a support network around you). No I'm not blaming the victim, the rapist doesn't get a pass from me because she was drunk, he should be prosecuted and sentenced to the fullest extent without mercy. I actually totally agree with you. The rapist is 100% at fault and we should all take basic precautions to protect ourselves. My issue is that when it comes to rape, the focus always seems to be on the lack of precautions on the part of the victim and it seems to be used as a red herring and way to lessen the blame of the rapist. It's so common that we don't even think about it. But every single time one of these rapes happen, we're unable to talk about it without examining what the victim did or didn't do. That just doesn't happen with the same frequency in other crimes. We don't minutely examine what neighborhood the person who was carjacked was driving through the way we talk about how dumb it is to get drunk at a frat party. And no matter how many times we say it or ways we say it, the very fact that we all spend so much time talking about what the victim did or didn't do compared to talking about the crime itself implies we think the victim's actions are as important or even more important than the attacker's choices. Exactly. I bet this guy wouldn't have thought twice (drunk or sober) that it was OK to take the passed out person's wallet or jewelry or whatever if they had been drinking together or talking together or just near by.
We've drummed it into our kids that taking a person's stuff IS WRONG always. But, we're not really clear on the fact that it's WRONG to take advantage of very drunk or unconscious people (ie women). Because at some level we blame the victim (the way they were dressed, they were stupid, they wanted it.... )
I don't think anyone thinks for a moment the new person they've just met who unfortunately is very drunk or who has passed out wants you to have their wallet, jewelry, phone, expensive coat, or take their car for a joyride.
But, it's ok to touch/have sex with someone (could be male could be female) who's very drunk or who has passed out - even when they can't consent... because you know - who doesn't WANT to be touched/have sex??
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 8, 2016 12:03:31 GMT -5
But it wasn't actually beyond her control. Again, I'm not blaming her but lets be honest. If she wasn't passed out behind a dumpster she wouldn't have been easy pickings for a rapist. He raped her and he is totally wrong. But she made herself vulnerable. Actually yes...this was you blaming her. It is me saying she put herself into a vulnerable position. Do you disagree that she made herself vulnerable? The kid raped her and he is to blame for that.
When the stuff was stolen out of my car because I left the windows down, my dad called me a dumb ass for basically leaving an open invitation for the thief. The thief is the one to blame but I certainly made it easy for him. Odds are had I not left my windows rolled down he would have moved on to an easier target. No different than when you get so drunk you pass out. you leave yourself vulnerable for anything. Doesn't mean that the guy should have raped you, killed you, etc. But it does mean you didn't do anything to protect yourself.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,331
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 8, 2016 12:11:04 GMT -5
Plenty of women who were "being careful" are still sexually assaulted or raped
Well yeah. Pure honest women who do everything to protect their value can be legitimately raped. Anyone else they probably did something stupid to deserve it.
It goes back to our Puritan heritage where a woman's worth was measured in how chaste she was. If you lost it clearly you weren't pious enough and punishment should be forthcoming.
That's why women in other cultures get stoned to death if they are raped. Now America is not so extreme but we do go to great lengths to rip apart the victim's actions as justification for why he did what he did.
It's buried so deep we don't even realize we're doing it. But like Mid said that's what you are doing when you say "Well he's to blame BUT. . . ."
We're also still dealing with the idea that "men can't help themselves" and "boys will be boys". Like somehow men are incapable of rational thought in the presence of a woman "doing something stupid". They need to be taught they don't get a free pass just because a woman "did something stupid". It's their choice to take advantage of the situation.
Look at how people are talking about ruining HIS life. Since the woman was drunk and passed out clearly this poor man couldn't help himself and doesn't deserve such a harsh sentence. It's not like he broke into her home while she was peacefully watching the Lifetime Channel. She was at a party and "did something stupid". If she hadn't put herself in that situation then he wouldn't have had the opportunity to commit a crime. The onus is on her. .. not him.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,374
|
Post by Tiny on Jun 8, 2016 12:14:47 GMT -5
Actually yes...this was you blaming her. It is me saying she put herself into a vulnerable position. Do you disagree that she made herself vulnerable? The kid raped her and he is to blame for that.
When the stuff was stolen out of my car because I left the windows down, my dad called me a dumb ass for basically leaving an open invitation for the thief. The thief is the one to blame but I certainly made it easy for him. Odds are had I not left my windows rolled down he would have moved on to an easier target. No different than when you get so drunk you pass out. you leave yourself vulnerable for anything. Doesn't mean that the guy should have raped you, killed you, etc. But it does mean you didn't do anything to protect yourself.
This is the generic you: Is it also being stupid if you are driving on your merry way - but some other car hits you? Were you complicit in the accident because you weren't paying enough attention? How could you NOT have seen that the other car was going to hit you? Were you too trusting that the other car would stop (maybe they were suppose to stop, maybe their weren't).
Maybe you should stop driving. It's dangerous. You have to keep putting yourself in vulnerable positions as you make your way down the road. You have to TRUST that other people will follow the rules or not make mistakes.
In the case of women putting themselves in 'vulnerable' positions - it's pretty much any party with alcohol - no, pretty much just about anywhere a woman might go unaccompanied by someone she knows well. Heck, sometimes it's just walking down the street (men feel the need to catcall or make propositions whatever).
The extreme of women keeping away from being in vulnerable positions means "not ever going out" or maybe only going out with someone. And since another woman chaperone isn't enough 'protection' maybe she needs to go out accompanied by a man... and I think we're all well read and worldly enough to know THAT just makes women even more vulnerable and with fewer rights/less authority BUT with all the responsibility for her 'honor/well being'.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 8, 2016 12:16:53 GMT -5
But you are STILL blaming the victim - you are blaming them for being 'stupid' which implies they will get what they deserve.
By the same token we can blame the rapist for being stupid enough to get caught. If he had been a faster talker (would have gotten the two passer byes to believe he had good intentions) OR a faster runner (escaped the two passer byes) - he wouldn''t be looking at 6 months of jail time and being on the sex offender register.
It also implies that I can walk past someone getting robbed or assaulted and just think "boy, that sure is stupid of that person for getting robbed/assaulted" it's not my problem. It's THEIR problem for having been stupid.
Do you see how BLAME is still being placed?
I'm NOT saying it isn't wise to consul your children about the consequences of their actions and about safety - but if you are telling them that if something BAD happens to them, something beyond their control -- it's because they were stupid or rather maybe not thinking about the consequences of their actions - you are still BLAMING them - it's still their fault something bad happened.
But it wasn't actually beyond her control. Again, I'm not blaming her but lets be honest. If she wasn't passed out behind a dumpster she wouldn't have been easy pickings for a rapist. He raped her and he is totally wrong. But she made herself vulnerable. Actually witnesses said they saw him walking her out of the party. And I believe this was after she left a voicemail for her bf that was way beyond incoherent. Oh except they were able to pick up something about her telling the bf she had a reward for him so the defense twisted that message to her bf to day that she wanted sex with douchebag. So it seems this guy decided to take a women who couldn't even talk out of the party and she ended up behind the dumpster.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 8, 2016 12:17:23 GMT -5
Plenty of women who were "being careful" are still sexually assaulted or raped
Well yeah. Pure honest women who do everything to protect their value can be legitimately raped. Anyone else they probably did something stupid to deserve it. It goes back to our Puritan heritage where a woman's worth was measured in how chaste she was. If you lost it clearly you weren't pious enough and punishment should be forthcoming. That's why women in other cultures get stoned to death if they are raped. Now America is not so extreme but we do go to great lengths to rip apart the victim's actions as justification for why he did what he did. It's buried so deep we don't even realize we're doing it. But like Mid said that's what you are doing when you say "Well he's to blame BUT. . . ." We're also still dealing with the idea that "men can't help themselves" and "boys will be boys". Like somehow men are incapable of rational thought in the presence of a woman "doing something stupid". They need to be taught they don't get a free pass just because a woman "did something stupid". It's their choice to take advantage of the situation. Look at how people are talking about ruining HIS life. Since the woman was drunk and passed out clearly this poor man couldn't help himself and doesn't deserve such a harsh sentence. It's not like he broke into her home while she was peacefully watching the Lifetime Channel. She was at a party and "did something stupid". If she hadn't put herself in that situation then he wouldn't have had the opportunity to commit a crime. The onus is on her. .. not him. Can you ever post without sarcasm? It is hard to take you seriously since you can't just have a discussion But show me anywhere in this thread where anyone said she deserved it?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jun 8, 2016 12:18:32 GMT -5
But it wouldn't have happened if she had been more careful, right? At least that's what I'm getting from comments like "she put herself into a vulnerable position." Why even bring it up if it's not a mitigating factor?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 8, 2016 12:20:19 GMT -5
It is me saying she put herself into a vulnerable position. Do you disagree that she made herself vulnerable? The kid raped her and he is to blame for that.
When the stuff was stolen out of my car because I left the windows down, my dad called me a dumb ass for basically leaving an open invitation for the thief. The thief is the one to blame but I certainly made it easy for him. Odds are had I not left my windows rolled down he would have moved on to an easier target. No different than when you get so drunk you pass out. you leave yourself vulnerable for anything. Doesn't mean that the guy should have raped you, killed you, etc. But it does mean you didn't do anything to protect yourself.
This is the generic you: Is it also being stupid if you are driving on your merry way - but some other car hits you? Were you complicit in the accident because you weren't paying enough attention? How could you NOT have seen that the other car was going to hit you? Were you too trusting that the other car would stop (maybe they were suppose to stop, maybe their weren't).
Maybe you should stop driving. It's dangerous. You have to keep putting yourself in vulnerable positions as you make your way down the road. You have to TRUST that other people will follow the rules or not make mistakes.
i actually do go out of my way to avoid driving when I know there are much higher chances of having drunk drivers on the road. Doesn't mean if I go out and get hit by one it is my fault. At the same time, I know that the only one that cares about my safety is me. Same thing Im saying in this thread. But somehow that gets turned jnto me blaming the victim
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 8, 2016 12:20:48 GMT -5
This is the generic you: Is it also being stupid if you are driving on your merry way - but some other car hits you? Were you complicit in the accident because you weren't paying enough attention? How could you NOT have seen that the other car was going to hit you? Were you too trusting that the other car would stop (maybe they were suppose to stop, maybe their weren't).
Maybe you should stop driving. It's dangerous. You have to keep putting yourself in vulnerable positions as you make your way down the road. You have to TRUST that other people will follow the rules or not make mistakes.
How about all the people who stay home on New Years Eve so they aren't on the road with all the drunks? Are those reasonable precautions? Lol. That's exactly what I just said!
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 8, 2016 12:22:47 GMT -5
But it wouldn't have happened if she had been more careful, right? At least that's what I'm getting from comments like "she put herself into a vulnerable position." Why even bring it up if it's not a mitigating factor? There is no point arguing the point. Those of us that are trying to say that we are each responsible for our personal safety (to the extent possible) are clearly wrong. So screw it. Let's all go to the ghetto at night with all kinds of jewelry because we have every right to go there. If something happens there is nothing we could have done to prevented it, right?
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 8, 2016 12:25:49 GMT -5
Yes, it definitely is more complicated in the cases where the victim and defendant know each other and have had a relationship that involved sex prior to the alleged rape. And it would be relevant to ask if the two had prior relations. I still don't see that what the woman was wearing was relevant, though... and again, she will be asked that. Just like she will be asked if she has sex with other people an in what situations - again, irrelevant and implying she's a "slut". The case cited in the OP, though is not remotely one of these confusing, complicated boyfriend/girlfriend situations or even a possible date rape. These two were not on a date, and in fact had never met before that night. Their first "meeting" was at the party where both were apparently drunk. She was so drunk she was unconscious and could not be wakened - even though the attack was physically traumatic and left her with serious injuries - or for hours after she was rescued. unfortunately the defense is going to do everything they can to prove that it was consensual sex. (assuming that the defendant admit to having sex with the victim). What was she wearing, did she touch his arm, did she kiss him, did she have a few drinks, did she laugh at his jokes, did she like to have lots of sex with lots of guys... etc, etc, it all goes to make a case that she consented. It is not right, but I don't know the answer to how to prevent it. getting convicted of rape certainly isn't good for a guy, especially if he is innocent, so a guy needs to be able to defend himself. How do you make it equitable for both parties? I don't know. But what a defense attorney does and what we do as a society are - and should be - two different things. Defense attorneys can get away with this defense because our societal conditioning makes us predisposed to believe it is relevant. When our media reports on these incidents and lists the attacker's athletic achievements or states what the victim was wearing... that perpetuates the myth. When we have school dress codes and administrators that explicitly state that girls have to cover up because if they don't it distracts the boys, that perpetuates the myth that girls are responsible for preventing boys' bad behaviour. When we individually hear about one of these crimes and discuss what the victim did - drinking, wearing, actions - to "contribute", then we perpetuate the myth. And because everybody buys into the idea that women are responsible for controlling the thoughts and actions of men and because it's considered OK to examine what she was wearing and how she contributed or failed to prevent her attack, we perpetuate the idea that she is partially responsible. We can stop this by making small but meaningful changes. Changes like: Calling out the media on their descriptions. Recently, our local paper had the headline "Man convicted of murdering a prostitute". A reader wrote in to point out that the attacker was a registered sex offender with many prior convictions and that the headline should have read "Convicted Sex Offender convicted of murdering a woman." Read that again. It's subtle but powerful. In the first headline the woman - who was the VICTIM - is devalued, demeaned and the implication is that she was putting herself at risk or was someone who deserved whatever she got at the hands of a "man". It's that type of pervasive messaging that is the problem. When we talk to our daughters about how to keep themselves safe, don't do it right after we hear about a rape. By connecting the two, you are implying with the timing that the rape victim was at fault. Work with our schools to make the dress codes gender neutral - same for all sexes and about a standard level of covering up, not about one sex being responsible for controlling the other sex. Call people out when they want to discuss the victim more than the crime. Will any of that help immediately or result in a 180 degree change? No. But over time, it will help. I'm in my 40s and remember how when I was growing up, the news always discussed the race of the criminal as an integral part of the story. It was "a black man is accused of _______" or "a jury convicted John Smith, a black man, of ________." Just mentioning the race implied that race was relevant to the crime. People would discuss crime and usually casually mention race in the discussion. None of that is considered OK any more partly because of small but important changes in the media and in how people talk amongst themselves. Over time, public reaction helped the media to realize that this was unacceptable and you don't hear about it any more. In most social settings, it's not considered acceptable and you don't hear it any more. We need to do something similar with how we constantly connect rape and "prevention"... make it socially unacceptable. Over time, as that happens it will no longer be something that defense attorneys will do since it will not be effective and will even backfire as people find it repugnant that a defense attorney would attempt to imply the length of a victim's skirt is relevant. Just like it now backfires if a defense attorney implies the color of the defendant's skin is relevant.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Jun 8, 2016 12:27:26 GMT -5
So if a girl gets so drunk and gets assaulted, we shouldn't blame her for the crime, but we should say "boy that was stupid of her"
That IS blaming her for the crime. If she hadn't been stupid she wouldn't have been a victim. Since she was stupid she has to accept the consequences of her actions. Where is the accountability in this statement for the guy who couldn't keep it in his pants and took her being drunk as an open invitation to assult her behind a dumpster? And there is the implication that if a woman is intoxicated that she somehow bears some responsibility for what happened to her. If someone is intoxicated, the only thing she should expect is a hangover. I don't care if she's laying there naked and told the guy before she lost the ability to consent that she'd have sex with him. This situation is all on the rapist. The person who decided that it was okay to violate someone else because that's what they wanted is 100% responsible for what happened. It's like saying that someone who is mugged needs to take responsibility for not barricading themselves in their home 24/7.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 8, 2016 12:28:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure if I can ask this so it doesn't come out snarky- please know it's not my intent. Isn't that what a defense attorney is supposed to do? Discredit the accuser, find inconsistencies, make them look less trustworthy to the jury? I can't really blame the attorney for asking the questions, as it's their job to make the defendant look less guilty. Do I find it repugnant, yes... surprising, no. I mean, they would do the same thing to someone who had been physically assaulted... the difference to me is that the nature of rape is going to provoke more sensitive questions. No, I don't think it's snarky; this is a valid point. It's the job of a defense attorney to do their best to offer reasonable defenses and I don't blame the defense attorneys for this defense. My issue is that this odious technique of implying the victim bears some blame because of her lack of preventative techniques because it only works because we as a society believes the idea to be valid. Let's change what we believe as a society, let's change what's socially acceptable and the defense attorneys will stop using those techniques.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Jun 8, 2016 12:28:56 GMT -5
I have tried 100's of cases. I have watched piles of trials.
Generally in sex abuse cases are the victims' actions cross examined like it was explained above. Sometimes it happens with domestic violence cases, but still not quite as embarrassing.
Assault cases: Generally there is the "you started it" but there are no personal questions.
Burglary: WAs the door unlocked? Had the defendant been there before? Did you know the defendant? That's about the extent of it.
The victim did make herself vulnerable, and we should teach our kids not to put themselves in a potentially bad situation. However, we shouldn't dwell on her. The focus should be on what a dirt bag this guy is.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Jun 8, 2016 12:31:11 GMT -5
Not all defense attorneys go to the same extent on cross exam as Brock's did. I don't think it was necessary. And it didn't work.
ETA: The difference in this case is the two Swedish dudes who literally caught Brock in the act. If it wasn't for them, it probably would have been "not guility" since she didn't know if she gave consent or not.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 8, 2016 12:34:42 GMT -5
THIS! I've been trying to really figure out why we treat rape and other crimes different when we talk about precautions. I think you found the answer here. ... more in a min have to go to a meeting. m I agree and disagree. I would use this as an example to my daughter of what can happen when you leave yourself totally vulnerable. Same as I do wigh everything else.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 8, 2016 12:35:47 GMT -5
I'm not sure if I can ask this so it doesn't come out snarky- please know it's not my intent. Isn't that what a defense attorney is supposed to do? Discredit the accuser, find inconsistencies, make them look less trustworthy to the jury? I can't really blame the attorney for asking the questions, as it's their job to make the defendant look less guilty. Do I find it repugnant, yes... surprising, no. I mean, they would do the same thing to someone who had been physically assaulted... the difference to me is that the nature of rape is going to provoke more sensitive questions. Except for every other crime they only go for inconsistencies in the victim's account of the instance. Whether or not she had sex with her bf two days previous has nothing to do with what occurred that night. It's not an inconsistency. How many people she has had sex with doesn't show an inconsistency of whether or not she said yes to this guy. Whether she wanted to have sex with her bf that night has nothing to with having sex with that guy. The bf wasn't there. That'd be like a thief saying "Well you were planning to donate the money I stole" as a defense to stealing your money. It's ludicrous and would not be allowed to be part of the defense. Yet it was in a rape trial. The thing is all the questions about previous sexual partners and encounters treats sex as a universal thing. Because she's had sex before she wanted to have sex this time. I mean, why else does it matter what she has done with other people unless the implication is she did it with him so she did it with me. The only instance past sexual encounters should even be remotely relevant is if there was a previous sexual relationship. But even that is practically irrelevant because there is no such thing as blanket consent when it comes to sex. Ever.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,374
|
Post by Tiny on Jun 8, 2016 12:36:19 GMT -5
Plenty of women who were "being careful" are still sexually assaulted or raped
Well yeah. Pure honest women who do everything to protect their value can be legitimately raped. Anyone else they probably did something stupid to deserve it. It goes back to our Puritan heritage where a woman's worth was measured in how chaste she was. If you lost it clearly you weren't pious enough and punishment should be forthcoming. That's why women in other cultures get stoned to death if they are raped. Now America is not so extreme but we do go to great lengths to rip apart the victim's actions as justification for why he did what he did. It's buried so deep we don't even realize we're doing it. But like Mid said that's what you are doing when you say "Well he's to blame BUT. . . ." We're also still dealing with the idea that "men can't help themselves" and "boys will be boys". Like somehow men are incapable of rational thought in the presence of a woman "doing something stupid". They need to be taught they don't get a free pass just because a woman "did something stupid". It's their choice to take advantage of the situation. Look at how people are talking about ruining HIS life. Since the woman was drunk and passed out clearly this poor man couldn't help himself and doesn't deserve such a harsh sentence. It's not like he broke into her home while she was peacefully watching the Lifetime Channel. She was at a party and "did something stupid". If she hadn't put herself in that situation then he wouldn't have had the opportunity to commit a crime. The onus is on her. .. not him. Can you ever post without sarcasm? It is hard to take you seriously since you can't just have a discussion But show me anywhere in this thread where anyone said she deserved it? No one in the threat said she deserved it. And I don't think there's any sarcasm... it's about the trial. The woman WAS asked very personal questions in such a way as to determine if she might have consented to sex with the guy. The guy's defense DID try to depict the woman as being the kind of girl who WOULD have sex with just anyone (her behavior, the way she was dressed, the fact that she was drinking at a frat party...) If they could determine that she was 'free and easy with sex' - then maybe it is OK for a guy to have sex with her when she is unconscious...
|
|